The Museum of HP Calculators

HP Forum Archive 21

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

This is not a calculator, It is an instrument
Message #1 Posted by Christopher Johnson on 9 May 2012, 1:22 a.m.

I have spending a lot of time with the 34S. Very nice calculator. I could see throwing this calc on the seat of my car.

Then I decided to use my original owner high top key 41C. What a difference. I would not think to throw this on the seat of my car. This is not a calculator. This is a high quality instrument that deserves respect.

Just my thoughts. Great job with the 34S. congrats to all involved.

CJ

      
Re: This is not a calculator, It is an instrument
Message #2 Posted by Eric Smith on 9 May 2012, 3:12 a.m.,
in response to message #1 by Christopher Johnson

Why not? The 41C was built to withstand being thrown on the seat of your car. It can take a lot of abuse.

      
Re: This is not a calculator, It is an instrument
Message #3 Posted by Marcus von Cube, Germany on 9 May 2012, 3:15 a.m.,
in response to message #1 by Christopher Johnson

I wish we had the facilities to create something like this (hardware quality wise) with our firmware in it. Maybe Eric's DIY will come close but I fear the keyboard experience will not be as satisfying (hopefully better than with my cute DM15-CC).

            
DIY keyboard, casing
Message #4 Posted by Eric Smith on 9 May 2012, 1:05 p.m.,
in response to message #3 by Marcus von Cube, Germany

The keyboard of the DIY will be very good. It isn't a mushy membrane keyboard, if that is what you are worried about. It uses tactile switches that contain metal domes, so they have the same kind of action and feel as the HP-41C keys. The switches are rated for hundreds of thousands of operations. Possibly a half million, depending on which of the switches we eventually choose.

The first production model may use a casing machined from aluminum, then black anodized. I'm considering using a mineral glass window to protect the LCD.

We might offer a limited edition in aluminum or steel with a titanium nitride coating, which is a beautiful gold color but *extremely* hard. TiN (not to be confused with tin) is one of the coatings used on machine tools to make the tools more durable.

I wonder if we could sell a very limited edition titanium calculator, not just called titanium by marketing people, like products from The Calculator Company That Should Not Be Named, but actually milled out of titanium. It would be *extremely* expensive; if you have to ask, you can't afford it.

Edited: 9 May 2012, 1:07 p.m.

                  
Re: DIY keyboard, casing
Message #5 Posted by Maximilian Hohmann on 9 May 2012, 1:19 p.m.,
in response to message #4 by Eric Smith

Hello!

Quote:
... but actually milled out of titanium. It would be *extremely* expensive; if you have to ask, you can't afford it.

It can't be too expensive though (probably depends on the number of units manufactured). There are quite a few affordable - even low-cost - watches on the market with titanium housings. And there is of course my Apple Titanium PowerBook, also made of real titanium. It was not cheap back then, but affordable. (And there are the Pratt&Whitney engines attached to my "office" whose entire fans are milled from one solid piece of titanium, unlike other jet engines that have individual fan blades. But these are only affordable for my boss I'm afraid.)

But any metal casing is better than plastic whatever metal you choose!

Regards, max

                        
limited edition titanium calculator
Message #6 Posted by Eric Smith on 9 May 2012, 1:58 p.m.,
in response to message #5 by Maximilian Hohmann

The number of units manufactured out of titanium will probably be fewer than five, unless there are more people than I expect who are willing to pay a LOT of money for a calculator. The titanium plate that the calculator will be machined from will probably cost more than $500, and the cost of the machining operations will be in the thousands of dollars. Machining titanium is slow and wears out a lot of tools. The price at which the limited edition titanium calculator is offered for sale may be $10K or more. It will be interesting to see whether we can get even a single buyer for that.

The aluminum calculator is *much* less expensive to make. Aluminum is relatively inexpensive, and easy to machine.

                        
Re: DIY keyboard, casing
Message #7 Posted by uhmgawa on 9 May 2012, 3:36 p.m.,
in response to message #5 by Maximilian Hohmann

Quote:
There are quite a few affordable - even low-cost - watches on the market with titanium housings. And there is of course my Apple Titanium PowerBook, also made of real titanium.

This begs the question of what happens to the device when the contents obsolete before the housing fails? The use case for a watch is quite mature, the notebook less so. For a calculator designed with a long endurance housing my choice would be one which accommodated internal upgrades (effectively a wholesale board swap). In one sense the use case for a calculator can be argued similar to the wrist watch above. However the prospects generally discussed here leverage in large part technology developed to feed the feature escalation of the handheld <whatever> mass market, which shows no signs of fizzling out any time soon. IOW it would be prudent to assure such a housing investment is preserved w/r/t reusability.

Quote:
But any metal casing is better than plastic whatever metal you choose!

I don't think this is necessarily true. Particularly if you're intending to coat/color the housing as surface coatings will wear through, negatively impacting the appearance. The lowly ABS housing while obviously structurally inferior to a metal counterpart, provides a homogeneous color and empirically wears quite well cosmetically.

Even using an uncoated metallic surface, some type of diffuse surface texture is required to obscure handling fingerprints as well as the eventual dings and scratches. While injection moulding polymers allows an aggressive texture inherent in the forming operation, getting the same on a hard machined, complex surface is considerably more involved. Perhaps some sort of media blasting would work but experimentation is likely needed here.

There are also similar issues to address for keycap body, keycap legend, keycap frame legends, etc.. relative to material choice, wear resistance, and manufacturing cost.

                        
Re: DIY keyboard, casing
Message #8 Posted by Raymond Del Tondo on 9 May 2012, 4:40 p.m.,
in response to message #5 by Maximilian Hohmann

Quote:
But any metal casing is better than plastic whatever metal you choose!
Lead? Rather not. Quicksilver? Even worse;-)
                              
Re: DIY keyboard, casing
Message #9 Posted by Walter B on 9 May 2012, 5:05 p.m.,
in response to message #8 by Raymond Del Tondo

Or think of cadmium, lithium, natrium, uranium, etc. :-I

                                    
Re: DIY keyboard, casing
Message #10 Posted by Maximilian Hohmann on 9 May 2012, 6:02 p.m.,
in response to message #9 by Walter B

Quote:
... uranium ...

Depleted Uranium would indeed make the ultimate calculator case! Almost three times the density of steel... if you drop it from your desk, it either hits your foot and breaks some bones inside or it misses and breaks some floor tiles instead :-)

I want one!

                                          
Re: DIY keyboard, casing
Message #11 Posted by Eric Smith on 9 May 2012, 8:43 p.m.,
in response to message #10 by Maximilian Hohmann

If I just wanted it to be dense, I'd rather use tungsten than depleted uranium. Tungsten is denser than uranium, and I can't afford any of the metals that are denser than tungsten.

If you want a calculator machined out of osmium, platinum, iridium, or rhenium, just supply suitable bar stock, and I'll be happy to make it for you.

                                                
Re: DIY keyboard, casing
Message #12 Posted by Paul Dale on 9 May 2012, 9:17 p.m.,
in response to message #11 by Eric Smith

And keep the shavings for resale :-)

- Pauli

                                                
Re: DIY keyboard, casing
Message #13 Posted by Cristian Arezzini on 10 May 2012, 5:43 a.m.,
in response to message #11 by Eric Smith

Well, osmium would be a dream - love its bluish color, I have a 2g pellet and it cost *a lot* - but I'd settle for sintered tungsten, it should be more easy to make and *way* more affordable! :)

                              
Re: DIY keyboard, casing
Message #14 Posted by Marcus von Cube, Germany on 10 May 2012, 2:26 a.m.,
in response to message #8 by Raymond Del Tondo

I could add sodium or potassium to the list of undesirable metals for a calculator case or keyboard.

                                    
Re: DIY keyboard, casing
Message #15 Posted by Paul Dale on 10 May 2012, 2:44 a.m.,
in response to message #14 by Marcus von Cube, Germany

What about the rest of the Alkali metals? Don't leave out poor lithium, rubidium, cćsium and francium please.

Okay, I'll let you leave out francium given the small quantities that exist at any one time.

- Pauli

                                          
Re: DIY keyboard, casing
Message #16 Posted by Walter B on 10 May 2012, 8:18 a.m.,
in response to message #15 by Paul Dale

Hey folks, lithium and natrium were mentioned above already ;-) Did I tell I have special warm feelings for languages where many names of elements don't match the abbreviations in the periodic table? Think of columbium at worst ;-) (I don't know any language matching them completely, do you?)

Edited: 10 May 2012, 8:32 a.m.

                  
Re: DIY keyboard, casing
Message #17 Posted by Nick R on 9 May 2012, 1:42 p.m.,
in response to message #4 by Eric Smith

How about moulding the aluminium case by explosive forming?

                        
Re: DIY keyboard, casing
Message #18 Posted by Eric Smith on 9 May 2012, 1:59 p.m.,
in response to message #17 by Nick R

That would be far more expensive than machining.

                              
Re: DIY keyboard, casing
Message #19 Posted by Dave Shaffer (Arizona) on 10 May 2012, 12:00 p.m.,
in response to message #18 by Eric Smith

but a lot more fun!

                                    
Re: DIY keyboard, casing
Message #20 Posted by Walter B on 10 May 2012, 2:44 p.m.,
in response to message #19 by Dave Shaffer (Arizona)

Oh yes, production frequency is heard easily (?) in the neighbourhood >|-/

                  
Re: DIY keyboard, casing
Message #21 Posted by Marcus von Cube, Germany on 9 May 2012, 1:59 p.m.,
in response to message #4 by Eric Smith

Will we get single keys (real key caps) or a membrane overlay over the switches? AFAIK, the DM15-CC keyboard uses metal domes under the membrane with limited success.

                        
Re: DIY keyboard, casing
Message #22 Posted by Eric Smith on 9 May 2012, 2:02 p.m.,
in response to message #21 by Marcus von Cube, Germany

Real key caps, of course.

For more than ten years our prototypes have used tactile switches (where the metal dome is embedded), partly because of the difficulty and expense of doing metal domes with a membrane properly in a low-volume product.

The 3D-printed prototype I have shown has real key caps; the only reason it had an overlay was that the key caps didn't bear legends.

Edited: 10 May 2012, 6:56 p.m.

                  
Re: DIY keyboard, casing
Message #23 Posted by John Keith on 14 May 2012, 8:30 a.m.,
in response to message #4 by Eric Smith

I vote for anodized aluminum. TiN-coated steel will rust eventually, and is much heavier than aluminum. Aluminum alloys have the highest strength-to weight ratio of any metal that mere humans can afford.

My second choice would be plastic. Not ABS, but the stronger "engineering resins" like what modern power tools are made from.

Definitely a glass window. Corning makes special glass formulations specifically for that purpose.

In any case, I want one NOW!

John

                        
Re: DIY keyboard, casing
Message #24 Posted by Marcus von Cube, Germany on 14 May 2012, 3:17 p.m.,
in response to message #23 by John Keith

Quote:
Definitely a glass window. Corning makes special glass formulations specifically for that purpose.
It's called "Gorilla Glas" and is used by major tablet and phone manufacturers. You can easily find more about this on the Net.
                              
Re: DIY keyboard, casing
Message #25 Posted by Eric Smith on 15 May 2012, 8:35 p.m.,
in response to message #24 by Marcus von Cube, Germany

Quote:
It's called "Gorilla Glas" and is used by major tablet and phone manufacturers. You can easily find more about this on the Net.

You can easily find out more in very general terms. Not much in the way of specifics. Nothing in the way of pricing.

As far as I've been able to determine, there's no way to buy it in small quantities, other than as part of a finished consumer product.

I'm more inclined to use mineral glass, as it is much more readily available. If it's good enough for watches, I'd think it would be good enough for a calculator.

                        
Re: DIY keyboard, casing
Message #26 Posted by uhmgawa on 14 May 2012, 3:25 p.m.,
in response to message #23 by John Keith

Quote:
I vote for anodized aluminum. TiN-coated steel will rust eventually, and is much heavier than aluminum. Aluminum alloys have the highest strength-to weight ratio of any metal that mere humans can afford.

The problem I anticipate with anodized aluminum, shared by most other surface coatings on a metallic base, is unsightly wear-through with handling -- particularly noticeable where other than a clear surface coating is used. Otherwise from a fabrication POV there are considerable advantages for aluminum including the economy to minimize machining via rough cast blanks.

Another possibility among commodity metals may be a free machining stainless steel, although while still more costly to machine it will provide substantially increased surface hardness over aluminum.

Quote:
My second choice would be plastic. Not ABS, but the stronger "engineering resins" like what modern power tools are made from.

I'd agree assuming the enclosure was to be injection moulded. Machining can be problematic particularly with reinforced resins. I suppose unadorned ABS wouldn't be my first choice either, but a PC/ABS alloy might not be a bad starting point for a prototype with a glass fiber fill as a production enhancement.

                              
Re: DIY keyboard, casing
Message #27 Posted by M. Joury on 14 May 2012, 4:35 p.m.,
in response to message #26 by uhmgawa

How about a ceramic case as is now being used on some cell phones (such as the upcoming Samsung Galaxy SIII)?

Cheers,

-Marwan

                                    
Re: DIY keyboard, casing
Message #28 Posted by Eric Rechlin on 14 May 2012, 5:46 p.m.,
in response to message #27 by M. Joury

I thought the Galaxy S III was going to be using a plastic case?

Eric

                                          
Re: DIY keyboard, casing
Message #29 Posted by M. Joury on 14 May 2012, 5:58 p.m.,
in response to message #28 by Eric Rechlin

Here is one link that refers to the "Ceramic/metal case." I have seen others. Of course this has yet to be confirmed by a production model.

Ceramic/Metal Case Link

Edit: Removed repetition...

Cheers,

Marwan

Edited: 14 May 2012, 6:00 p.m.

                              
Re: DIY keyboard, casing
Message #30 Posted by Eric Smith on 15 May 2012, 8:55 p.m.,
in response to message #26 by uhmgawa

Quote:
stainless steel, although while still more costly to machine it will provide substantially increased surface hardness over aluminum

Anodized aluminum has better surface hardness than stainless steel, and TiN and TiCN coatings are better yet.

Rockwell "C" surface hardness (ISO-6508-1, ASTM E18):

stainless steel:         56
anodized aluminum:       60-65
titanium nitride (TiN):  83
TiCN:                    off the scale

Edited: 15 May 2012, 8:55 p.m.

                                    
Re: DIY keyboard, casing
Message #31 Posted by uhmgawa on 16 May 2012, 9:53 a.m.,
in response to message #30 by Eric Smith

Quote:
Anodized aluminum has better surface hardness than stainless steel, and TiN and TiCN coatings are better yet.

Considerable hardness variation exists among available stainless alloys. Add to this the cold (work) hardening characteristics when machined, potentially increased by abrasive blasting to achieve a finish texture. So likely some experimentation is needed to determine real world performance given the actual material and process choices. Even assuming an end user facing stainless alloy finish measurably softer relative to anodized aluminum, the oxide layer will typically be a few mils deep and won't have a great influence on impact deformation. But otherwise the hard layer would resist less traumatic abrasion far better than the core aluminum alone.

Repair due to eventual oxide erosion and dings may be a concern. In the case of an anodized finish, doing so will likely be impractical particularly if the oxide is dyed. While a brushed/matte/blasted raw metallic finish probably wouldn't be my first choice aesthetically, maintenance would be far less for those concerned with such things.

In terms of ABS, personally I don't see an issue for the most part although newer grades/alloys exist which are worth consideration. PC/ABS seems to be quite popular for portable enclosures particularly for designs containing thin wall sections. In general the lower thermal conductivity of plastics seems (to me at least) more ergonomic compared to grasping a room temperature cool block of metal.

About the only realistic, functional concern I'd have for a polymer enclosure would be achieving the required rigidity in long, thin sections. It may not be possible to create integral beams within the enclosure of sufficient depth to withstand design housing flex, subsequently transferred to the internal pcb and display glass. This is probably more of an issue for a landscape footprint where the long display and housing dimensions are parallel.

There are likely other manufacturability issues to grapple with in the case of machining ABS relative to metal such as sufficient fixturing of the work to combat the substantially increased deflection. Machining accuracy and surface finish will limit achievable thin sections relative to injection moulding. Although for one-off prototypes I might experiment via potting in a wax filler to temporarily increase rigidity during machining.

                        
Re: DIY keyboard, casing
Message #32 Posted by Eric Smith on 15 May 2012, 8:41 p.m.,
in response to message #23 by John Keith

Quote:
TiN-coated steel will rust eventually

Do you have any references on that? Part of the reason TiN or TiCN coating is used is for corrosion resistance.

Lately I've been considering TiN or TiCN coated aluminum, depending on whether one wants gold tone or dark grey.

Quote:
My second choice would be plastic. Not ABS, but the stronger "engineering resins" like what modern power tools are made from.

What's wrong with ABS? HP calculators were/are molded from ABS, and I don't recall hearing any complaints about it. Molded ABS is quite durable and has very good impact resistance.

                              
Re: DIY keyboard, casing
Message #33 Posted by Andrés C. Rodríguez (Argentina) on 16 May 2012, 8:11 a.m.,
in response to message #32 by Eric Smith

A possible issue for DIY design:

A metal case, particularly a thick one, with sharp edges, with electronics inside, and with a, well, "DIY look" (what else, after all?) will be a big pain at airports security stands.

Just my AR$ 0.10

                                    
Re: DIY keyboard, casing
Message #34 Posted by uhmgawa on 16 May 2012, 2:24 p.m.,
in response to message #33 by Andrés C. Rodríguez (Argentina)

Quote:
A possible issue for DIY design:

A metal case, particularly a thick one, with sharp edges, with electronics inside, and with a, well, "DIY look" (what else, after all?) will be a big pain at airports security stands.

The other double edged sword of sorts with metallic enclosures is the inherent Faraday Cage. While beneficial for electrostatic shielding, it complicates antenna placement for any type of wireless RF link.

Edited: 18 May 2012, 7:54 a.m. after one or more responses were posted

                                          
Re: DIY keyboard, casing
Message #35 Posted by Eric Smith on 16 May 2012, 5:38 p.m.,
in response to message #34 by uhmgawa

I'm not planning to have an RF link. Briefly considered Bluetooth, but the cost, impact on battery life, and large amount of required firmware development make it a non-starter.

                                    
Re: DIY keyboard, casing
Message #36 Posted by Eric Smith on 16 May 2012, 5:36 p.m.,
in response to message #33 by Andrés C. Rodríguez (Argentina)

I'm not planning for a calculator to have either sharp edges or a "DIY look".

                        
Re: DIY keyboard, casing
Message #37 Posted by Hugh Evans on 18 May 2012, 3:56 p.m.,
in response to message #23 by John Keith

I've considered most of these points at length over the years, so here are a few of my thoughts:

Metal has a cool factor to it, but it will scratch and dent as well as prevent RF from getting in or out. While it could certainly be done, I no longer see the logic behind an all metal case design.

I'm not sure why plastic has such a bad rap in some circles. When well executed, plastics can have better durability than metals. A great example of nearly indestructible plastic components are the synthetic parts on my AR-15 rifle. Components such as the stock are made from fiber reinforced Nylon-6.

Aluminosilicate (gorilla) glass is a very cool material, and I would love to see in in a calculator (in fact I've drawn up conceptual art where the entire front plate is gorilla glass.) As other comments have stated it's really geared towards mass production at the moment. On top of that, it has to be purchased in its untreated for cutting and then treated to achieve all of its desirable properties.

Most of my designs include a protective rubber boot to surround everything except the front of the calculator. This seems like common sense to me: look around at anyone carrying a cell phone. How many of those at least have a rubber "bumper" case to give them protection from shock and abrasion in addition to some extra grip?

I'm waiting for some parts to come in from rapid prototyping in the next month or so, should be fun to see what people think. There's never a shortage of opinions around here :)

                              
Re: DIY keyboard, casing
Message #38 Posted by uhmgawa on 19 May 2012, 11:42 a.m.,
in response to message #37 by Hugh Evans

Quote:
Metal has a cool factor to it, but it will scratch and dent as well as prevent RF from getting in or out. While it could certainly be done, I no longer see the logic behind an all metal case design.

Realistically any practical material in this service will be subject to scratch and dent trauma. The considerable success of lowly ABS is in large part due to enduring/hiding the inevitable scars quite well. Part due to its shock resilience, and when that fails, the purposeful surface texturing and inherent homogeneous color.

Quote:
Most of my designs include a protective rubber boot to surround everything except the front of the calculator. This seems like common sense to me: look around at anyone carrying a cell phone. How many of those at least have a rubber "bumper" case to give them protection from shock and abrasion in addition to some extra grip?

I suspect the ubiquitous nature of a cell phone motivates the use of a boot. IOW I'm unsure if the need is as pressing relative to the average use case for a calc. I'm sort of on the fence here, and likely biased as I've seen far too many poorly designed aftermarket boots. If the boot was relatively thin, tight to the enclosure (perhaps keyed into the surface), and scaled back to the corner extremities, it would minimize the suffocating appearance and objectionable bulk. Another possibility would be to overmold the enclosure base with a plastomer, which seems to be fairly popular today. Though between the two I'd opt for a detachable boot which could be tossed when either worn or has grown out of favour.

                              
Re: DIY keyboard, casing
Message #39 Posted by Bruce Larrabee on 22 May 2012, 2:37 a.m.,
in response to message #37 by Hugh Evans

Delrin would be cool. I used to work with all sorts of high grade industrial plastics. I would list a couple of others but so far I have not been able to remember their names.

Some of these plastics are nearly indestructible.

Some of them, if someone asked how much they cost they were laughed out of the building.

                                    
Re: DIY keyboard, casing
Message #40 Posted by uhmgawa on 22 May 2012, 8:03 p.m.,
in response to message #39 by Bruce Larrabee

Quote:
Delrin would be cool. I used to work with all sorts of high grade industrial plastics. I would list a couple of others but so far I have not been able to remember their names.

Acetal (aka delrin) is indeed durable. However adhesion to it is complex due to its low surface energy. IIRC it is possible to chemically etch to improve adhesive performance. But doing so starts to become specialized manufacturing and adhesive joined legend plates, surface printing, etc.. may have to be rethought. Acetal keys would probably work well if they were 2-part moulded. Although relative to more common plastics, Acetal has some problematic moulding failure modes.

            
DIY Calc: Kickstarter for funding?
Message #41 Posted by Jeff Dinkins on 9 May 2012, 3:05 p.m.,
in response to message #3 by Marcus von Cube, Germany

Have you explored an option such as Kickstarter for funding?

There have been several successful projects in the industrial design vein done there already. Examples:

iPod Nano watch case

Aluminum iPod Dock

A fancy LED clock

E-ink Watch

One of the neatest things about Kickstarter is the the project creator sets the $ amount they need to finance the project, people then "pledge" to buy said item, however people aren't charged unless the funding goal is met.

For example, lets say your budget required a minimum of $50,000 at $100 per calculator to finance the machining, creation of molds, buying parts, and assembly, etc. You'd need 500 people to pledge $100 each to hit your goal.

If you only get 499 people to pledge, the pledge period is considered unsuccessful, and the project does not get funded. But if you hit that magic 500 or above, at the end of the funding period Kickstarter charges everyone and dumps the money into your hands to start production. And if you go way over your minimum, economy of scale starts to kick in, and you can start doing some nifty things just because you can bulk order more for less cost per unit.

They also have the notion of different pledge levels. So you can have your $10,000 titanium calculator as one super upscale level. Indeed, you might want to do $100 plastic, $200 aluminum, and $mega-dollar titanium levels.

                  
Re: DIY Calc: Kickstarter for funding?
Message #42 Posted by db (martinez, ca.) on 9 May 2012, 4:11 p.m.,
in response to message #41 by Jeff Dinkins

i've put money in two projects on kickstarter. no hassles, no problems. from my experience, limited to the buyer's direction, it's an example of something the internet does well. both makers kept us in the loop about progress and timetables, which is easy to do when one note suffices for everyone.

                        
Re: DIY Calc: Kickstarter for funding?
Message #43 Posted by Ethan Conner on 9 May 2012, 4:50 p.m.,
in response to message #42 by db (martinez, ca.)

I've just backed my first kickstarter project. An e-paper watch that is bluetooth compatible for iphone and android. Hoping not to be disappointed.

      
Ditto!
Message #44 Posted by Luiz C. Vieira (Brazil) on 9 May 2012, 5:01 a.m.,
in response to message #1 by Christopher Johnson

I haven't got the chance to try the WP34S, but I also have my HP41C, bought new. It had been handled somehow, the mainboard is not the one it came with, but it is still there and working fine, thanks.

Edited: 9 May 2012, 5:03 a.m.

            
Re: Ditto!
Message #45 Posted by Marcus von Cube, Germany on 9 May 2012, 5:18 a.m.,
in response to message #44 by Luiz C. Vieira (Brazil)

Quote:
I haven't got the chance to try the WP34S,...
You can still try the emulator(s) so you will know if you like it or not.
                  
Re: This is not a calculator, It is an instrument
Message #46 Posted by Reth on 9 May 2012, 6:21 a.m.,
in response to message #45 by Marcus von Cube, Germany

The whole magic about calculators lays in the hardware. The feel of the buttons etc... If that weren't the case, free42 by Thomas Okken and iPhone app by Byron Foster would not leave any breathing space for others. My admirations for the wp34 s, but it is like 25 years too late.

Edited: 9 May 2012, 7:55 a.m.

                        
Re: This is not a calculator, It is an instrument
Message #47 Posted by Howard Owen on 9 May 2012, 1:50 p.m.,
in response to message #46 by Reth

Quote:
My admirations for the wp34 s, but it is like 25 years too late.

Most of what we do as enthusiasts is 25 years too late. That's part of the charm. :)

The wp34S shows that a community developed calculator on real hardware is possible. It also shows, once again, how powerful the open source model is. A dedicated and skilled core team supported by a larger community can produce a product far superior to what the market is providing. There's hope for an excellent hardware platform from Eric's DIY project. The hope is that marrying that hardware with the WP34S code, plus classic calculator emulations will produce a machine every bit as worthy of the "instrument" label.

Don't get me wrong. I learned to program on an HP41C. It is my all time favorite computing device. My mind has been permanently warped by RPN and FOCAL. But, alas, I'm unfaithful to her sometimes, and put my hands on other calculators. She always welcomes me back though. :)

                  
Re: Ditto!
Message #48 Posted by Luiz C. Vieira (Brazil) on 9 May 2012, 9:31 a.m.,
in response to message #45 by Marcus von Cube, Germany

Hallo, Marcus.

I surely like it already, reading the threads about the WP34S has just triggered my wish to have one. I have downloaded one of the emulators already (do not recall which one of them) but I did not install it yet. I'm in such a hurry with the daily activities I cannot tell...

Cheers.

Luiz (Brazil)

      
Re: This is not a calculator, It is an instrument
Message #49 Posted by Reth on 9 May 2012, 6:33 a.m.,
in response to message #1 by Christopher Johnson

Agreed, I've got my HP41C on my desk and love it even though I have no real usage for it. I have put CV board in it and wouldn't mind the CL but the price is too high for nostalgic items at this stage.

Anyway, by far the best calculator ever as far as I'm concerned and never to be levelled.

Edited: 9 May 2012, 7:54 a.m.

            
Re: This is not a calculator, It is an instrument
Message #50 Posted by Ángel Martin on 9 May 2012, 9:27 a.m.,
in response to message #49 by Reth

Quote:
wouldn't mind the CL but the price is too high for nostalgic items at this stage

The CL board is worth every cent and yet much more. Put it on a suitable donor and you'll see all the NEW software written for the 41 system fly as it's intended to: complex numbers, matrices, quaternions, etc... a dream come true and a joy to behold.

                  
Re: This is not a calculator, It is an instrument
Message #51 Posted by Juergen Rodenkirchen on 9 May 2012, 4:33 p.m.,
in response to message #50 by Ángel Martin

Hi Ángel,

agreed with your appraisal of the CL. And I *sometimes* really want one. But, do you know what's distract me to get one until now? (OK, apart from not owing a donor machine so far ;-))? It is not the price (which is more than OK for the gem you get!). It is the fact that if I wish / had the need to have a Calc that can do "everything", I'd go with the 50-series. If I want a 41 I get a 41C, CV or CX but not a CL because to me the CL is indeed a wonderful machine but is *not* an HP-41 anymore. It is just the *casing* of an 41 mithout it's *soul* ... anyway, would like to get a CL sometime :-)

All the best, Juergen

                        
Re: This is not a calculator, It is an instrument
Message #52 Posted by Monte Dalrymple on 9 May 2012, 6:33 p.m.,
in response to message #51 by Juergen Rodenkirchen

Quote:
It is just the *casing* of an 41 mithout it's *soul* ...


At the core of the NEWT microprocessor is as exact a copy of the CPU in the 41C as I can make. This core is surrounded by logic that supports the larger physical address space and the logic that allows interfacing to the parallel memories on the board. I did the design this way in an attempt to preserve the "soul" of the machine as much as possible. But I understand that not everyone will see it the same way.

I like to think that the 41CL is the machine that could have been, had HP not veered in the direction of the 48 series and RPL.

To me, at least, machines that emulate an instruction set using a generic microprocessor (be it ARM, or whatever) lack the "soul" of an HP mahine.

Just my 2 cents.
                              
Re: This is not a calculator, It is an instrument
Message #53 Posted by Kerem Kapkin (Silicon Valley, CA) on 9 May 2012, 8:23 p.m.,
in response to message #52 by Monte Dalrymple

Monte, well said! I share your prespective, although I enjoy the new HP-12C and HP-15C LE, I always feel they lack the "soul" by running an emulation on an ARM processor. However 41CL is different, it is rejuvinated with modern ICs retaining its "soul". Which is why won't hessitate to update my HP-41 to "CL". That not only allows me to enjoy this wonderful machine many more years to come with much more memory and power, but also retains the "soul" which I got to like for many years. Thank you for making 41CL a reality!

                              
Re: This is not a calculator, It is an instrument
Message #54 Posted by Juergen Rodenkirchen on 10 May 2012, 3:59 p.m.,
in response to message #52 by Monte Dalrymple

Hi Monte,

Quote:
I like to think that the 41CL is the machine that could have been, had HP not veered in the direction of the 48 series and RPL.

Agreed! I like your "interpretation". Thinking of the CL of a successor of the 41-C/CV/CX makes absolutely sense to me and makes my reservation of the CL pointless. Surely will try get my hands on the gem sometime :-)

All the Best, Juergen

                              
Re: This is not a calculator, It is an instrument
Message #55 Posted by Luiz C. Vieira (Brazil) on 10 May 2012, 4:44 p.m.,
in response to message #52 by Monte Dalrymple

I found myself seeing "Star Track the Movie": V'Ger

                              
Re: This is not a calculator, It is an instrument
Message #56 Posted by uhmgawa on 11 May 2012, 4:06 p.m.,
in response to message #52 by Monte Dalrymple

Quote:
At the core of the NEWT microprocessor is as exact a copy of the CPU in the 41C as I can make. This core is surrounded by logic that supports the larger physical address space and the logic that allows interfacing to the parallel memories on the board. I did the design this way in an attempt to preserve the "soul" of the machine as much as possible. But I understand that not everyone will see it the same way.

I think there certainly is value preserving the logic definition of legacy silicon. Emulators are true to their billing, and realistically an implementation convenience.

Quote:
To me, at least, machines that emulate an instruction set using a generic microprocessor (be it ARM, or whatever) lack the "soul" of an HP mahine.

Moreover nuances exist in the design of an architecture (eg: instruction encoding) which soft emulation approaches may easily gloss over, yet would be obvious with a dedicated logic design dissecting the instruction stream. But I'm certainly preaching to the choir here.

For good or ill the absolute, mind boggling flood of ARM SoCs have so great an engineering investment behind them, it is effectively impossible for dedicated silicon to compete from a commercial perspective. However IMHO that does not diminish the value of doing so in this context.

                        
Re: This is not a calculator, It is an instrument
Message #57 Posted by Ángel Martin on 10 May 2012, 5:57 a.m.,
in response to message #51 by Juergen Rodenkirchen

To this day (and after the HEPAX DISASM fixes) my CL has flawlessly performed all the very many programs, MCODE functions and extensions to the 41 system that I've written or use frequently. This is a serious accomplishment in my book, and surely speaks of "soul retainment" very favorably.

Throw on top of that the superb MMU (which should stand for Magic Made Unreal), the serial interface, the capability to modify the buil-in OS, the 140+ modules library, and you'll see that it's not only about the speed!

      
Re: This is not a calculator, It is an instrument
Message #58 Posted by John W Kercheval on 9 May 2012, 7:16 a.m.,
in response to message #1 by Christopher Johnson

41 is superb. A bona fide Hallmark.

I drive a Rolls-Royce Silver Spirit III. Throwing anything on the seat of that car (other than Scarlet Johannson's rear end) is unheard of. But I know what you are saying.

I played with a 34s briefly and was impressed. But I am always impressed with HP.

Your instrument word is spot on. The 41 & 71 are both "instruments" in my book.

In terms of seat throwing, just use a quality case to protect the magnificence of the unit. And try the CL upgrade. The guy who invented that is a genius.

Keep up the good work!!!

            
Re: This is not a calculator, It is an instrument
Message #59 Posted by Tim Wessman on 9 May 2012, 9:21 a.m.,
in response to message #58 by John W Kercheval

I drive a Toyota Sienna and am happy if *all* that ends up in my seats is someone's rear end. My passengers also help with durability testing by pressing calculator buttons, chewing on the units, drooling, placing sticky fingers and crumbs into the keyboard, and all other manner of tortures. :-)

TW

                  
+1 LOL
Message #60 Posted by Howard Owen on 9 May 2012, 1:38 p.m.,
in response to message #59 by Tim Wessman

NT

                  
Re: This is not a calculator, It is an instrument
Message #61 Posted by Jeroen Van Nieuwenhove on 9 May 2012, 4:57 p.m.,
in response to message #59 by Tim Wessman

Now HP has outsourced quality control to your kids? Not a bad idea!
Did they test the 35s? <grin>

                        
Re: This is not a calculator, It is an instrument
Message #62 Posted by Tim Wessman on 9 May 2012, 5:39 p.m.,
in response to message #61 by Jeroen Van Nieuwenhove

Nope. 35s was before my time. The 10bII+ went through this testing though.

He already had a taste for RPN though, so it wasn't satisfying.

TW

                              
Re: This is not a calculator, It is an instrument
Message #63 Posted by Steve Simpkin on 9 May 2012, 5:46 p.m.,
in response to message #62 by Tim Wessman

LOL! Priceless. Just Priceless.

                              
Re: This is not a calculator, It is an instrument
Message #64 Posted by Fabricio on 9 May 2012, 7:20 p.m.,
in response to message #62 by Tim Wessman

So nice pics Tim !!

                              
Re: This is not a calculator, It is an instrument
Message #65 Posted by Geoff Quickfall on 9 May 2012, 7:21 p.m.,
in response to message #62 by Tim Wessman

HA HA HA HA ! Perfect Tim!

                              
Re: This is not a calculator, It is an instrument
Message #66 Posted by Howard Owen on 10 May 2012, 4:12 a.m.,
in response to message #62 by Tim Wessman

Weak with laughter. :)

                              
Re: This is not a calculator, It is an instrument
Message #67 Posted by Nick R on 10 May 2012, 9:40 a.m.,
in response to message #62 by Tim Wessman

You'll have to teach him that Pi isn't edible.

                                    
Re: This is not a calculator, It is an instrument
Message #68 Posted by Gerson W. Barbosa on 10 May 2012, 4:53 p.m.,
in response to message #67 by Nick R

That pi is:

                                          
Re: This is not a calculator, It is an instrument
Message #69 Posted by W. Bruce Maguire II on 10 May 2012, 5:25 p.m.,
in response to message #68 by Gerson W. Barbosa

Very nice!

Bruce.

                                          
Re: This is not a calculator, It is an instrument
Message #70 Posted by Nick R on 10 May 2012, 5:28 p.m.,
in response to message #68 by Gerson W. Barbosa

I guess the only keys that work are / and 8

                                                
Re: This is not a calculator, It is an instrument
Message #71 Posted by Gerson W. Barbosa on 10 May 2012, 6:11 p.m.,
in response to message #70 by Nick R

Does the latter always work in London, where the cake is supposed to have been eaten?

                                                      
Re: This is not a calculator, It is an instrument
Message #72 Posted by Nick R on 10 May 2012, 7:32 p.m.,
in response to message #71 by Gerson W. Barbosa

Only if it has a red dot, which makes for more expensive icing and therefore puts the cake out of reach of the peasants.

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

Go back to the main exhibit hall