WP 34S > WP 31S

01302014, 09:11 PM
Post: #1




WP 34S > WP 31S
Let's try to reduce the function set of the WP 34S to lower the entry step for possible RPN juniors. This would lead to a WP 31S which is still "scientific" (should read: technical), but drops programmability and the ... hmmh ... more arcane mathematical functions. So it's boiled down to a "basic scientific" calculator of today, containing a pure subset of 128 functions of the WP 34S function set. It's still way more than a 4banger, but featuring only one shift key it's way less frightening than a WP 34S. I put the keyboard layout and the index of operations (just showing the full access paths to each and every operation) into a little pdf attached. Hope it suits the target group.
As usual, comments, remarks, etc. are most welcome. d:) 

01302014, 10:36 PM
Post: #2




RE: WP 34S > WP 31S
The inverse hyperbolic functions could be easier to access. shift HYP shift SIN for ASINH e.g. Seems more natural than burying them in a MORE catalogue.
How many storage registers? 100+ seems like overkill for a nonprogrammable. I don't think conversion from the 34S code base to this would take all that long. There is a huge amount that could be removed, but none that needs to be.  Pauli 

01302014, 10:45 PM
(This post was last modified: 01302014 10:46 PM by Jonathan Cameron.)
Post: #3




RE: WP 34S > WP 31S
Walter,
I really liked this proposal. I hope you will forgive me, but I decided to try my hand at rearranging the keys a bit. The key features:
My goal, since I saw this as a tool for basic scientific/engineering calculations, was to make the common functions easy to use. It seemed to me that x^2 would more often useful than the statistics functions. Jonathan 

01302014, 11:05 PM
Post: #4




RE: WP 34S > WP 31S
Nice layout for a non programmable RPN scientific calculator.
My first comments (no particular order):


01312014, 06:14 AM
Post: #5




RE: WP 34S > WP 31S
(01302014 11:05 PM)Didier Lachieze Wrote: My first comments (no particular order): Answers in the same order:
d:) 

01312014, 07:23 AM
Post: #6




RE: WP 34S > WP 31S
(01312014 06:14 AM)walter b Wrote: Answers in the same order:


01312014, 07:57 AM
Post: #7




RE: WP 34S > WP 31S
Good ideas. Will think about them.
d:) 

01312014, 08:09 AM
Post: #8




RE: WP 34S > WP 31S
Flags are pointless on a nonprogrammable. Beyond the mode setting ones. In this case that would be flag 'D' assuming you want the dangerous real number mode. Integer mode seems gone, so no B or C and the A flag is useless without programs.
Fortunately, I don't see any flag commands on the keyboard  Pauli 

01312014, 08:31 AM
Post: #9




RE: WP 34S > WP 31S
10 GP registers save a keystroke to access each one. That plus, A, B, C, D, I, J & K should be sufficient for a nonprogrammable.
 Pauli 

01312014, 08:41 AM
Post: #10




RE: WP 34S > WP 31S
OK, that's a reason Will mean 17 gp registers for traditionalists and 13 for worryfree RPN calculations. So be it.
d:) (How about using <Quote> for responding to a certain post?) 

01312014, 09:44 AM
Post: #11




RE: WP 34S > WP 31S
No need to quote, I posted immediately after you
Got to keep the Internet clean and redundancy free after all  Pauli 

01312014, 10:00 AM
Post: #12




RE: WP 34S > WP 31S
Time and location are two different aspects of timespace continua


01312014, 09:53 PM
Post: #13




RE: WP 34S > WP 31S  
01312014, 10:19 PM
(This post was last modified: 01312014 10:19 PM by d b.)
Post: #14




RE: WP 34S > WP 31S
Walter; That keyboard looks good. Now that I see it; I might consider using a 20b, just to have one. It would be nice to have your H.d grouped with your H.ms , HMS+ & HMS but i'm not sure you would want to move any of those neighbors away from where they are.
It sure has grown since the beginning in the thread on a basic RPN. It looks like a 4 banger built to Government Specifications. 

01312014, 10:40 PM
Post: #15




RE: WP 34S > WP 31S
(01312014 09:53 PM)walter b Wrote: OK, second try Very nice. I like it. But I did have a few VERY minor quibles:
Nice, and a good improvement over my suggestion. Jonathan 

01312014, 10:49 PM
(This post was last modified: 01312014 11:48 PM by Jonathan Cameron.)
Post: #16




RE: WP 34S > WP 31S
Please remind me why we need the letter designators under each key?
If we did not print the letters on the background, this would be a very easy calculator to set up: You would only need to do the keytops and flash it; you would not need to open it to solder in a crystal (since time functions are not supported). Jonathan P.S. Edited to add that you need to flash it... 

02012014, 03:56 AM
Post: #17




RE: WP 34S > WP 31S
Looking good. How about the order of x s r on 4 5 6 instead of s x r ?
And, perhaps DEG H .d H.MS on 1 2 3 and RAD on 0. This places H. d and H.MS next to each other on the same row and DEG RAD right above each other. I know this is an endless subjective matter, but for your consideration. I can't wait to try this on a 30b. Have to ask Eric Rechlin to make some more overlays. :) 

02012014, 08:48 AM
Post: #18




RE: WP 34S > WP 31S
(01312014 10:40 PM)Jonathan Cameron Wrote: Very nice. I like it. But I did have a few VERY minor quibles: Thankyou. About LG: We had that topic more than once on the old forum. It boils down to: If LOGx(y) denotes the common logarithm of y to base x then you must not use the same name (LOG) for another function (one of the very basic rules of math). Thus, LN is used for LOGe as you know, and LG is used for LOG10 as people know on this continent at least. About MORE and x<>: Hand waving argument works like the operation STO is more related to x<> than to MORE. You can't STOre anything in MORE, can you? d:) 

02012014, 09:01 AM
Post: #19




RE: WP 34S > WP 31S
(02012014 08:48 AM)walter b Wrote: About MORE and x<>: Hand waving argument works like the operation STO is more related to x<> than to MORE. You can't STOre anything in MORE, can you? Of course, a counter argument might go that you have to sacrfice some congruency: Either the MORE is not related to STO, or MORE is not related to X<>Y... So I think your original layout (shiftX<>Y is X<>) looks better to me. In any case it is really a pretty minor discomfort. Regarding LG vs LOG: I was not part of the earlier conversation (sorry to bring it up again). But we could also use LG10 or LOG10 (with 10 in a smaller font), right? That would avoid any ambiguity. Jonathan 

02012014, 09:02 AM
Post: #20




RE: WP 34S > WP 31S
(01312014 10:49 PM)Jonathan Cameron Wrote: Please remind me why we need the letter designators under each key? ? Some answers (feel free to pick one or more ):
HTH d:I 

« Next Oldest  Next Newest »

User(s) browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)