WP 34S --> WP 31S

[walter b]

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 4-banger, 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:-)

[Paul Dale]

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 non-programmable.

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

[Jonathan Cameron]

Walter,

I really liked this proposal. I hope you will forgive me, but I decided to try my hand at re-arranging the keys a bit.

   

The key features:

• Added x^2 on top row
• Moved statistics functions to shifted functions under numbers.
• Moved STAT menu to bottom row
• Rearraged some of the shifted keys under the digits to group the statistics functions together
• Move [Rad] [Deg] to top row (shifted)
• Deleted % command (something had to go..)
  

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

[Didier Lachieze]

Nice layout for a non programmable RPN scientific calculator.
My first comments (no particular order):

• no x^2 ? I would expect this function on any basic scientific calculator
• DISP menu: I would remove E3ON & E3OFF, and have E3ON by default. This would simplify the DISP menu and provide a consistent way to access ALL, FIX, SCI and ENG modes: shift DISP A or F or S or E Enter
• MORE menu: you have NEXTP, why not PRIME?
• what's the usage of alpha on the Enter key?
• there is H.MS : is it as on the 34S just affecting the display or is it like ->H.MS and in this case where is the inverse function ->H ?
  

I may have missed other points.

[walter b]

(01-30-2014 11:05 PM)Didier Lachieze Wrote:  My first comments (no particular order):

• no x^2 ? I would expect this function on any basic scientific calculator
• DISP menu: I would remove E3ON & E3OFF, and have E3ON by default. This would simplify the DISP menu and provide a consistent way to access ALL, FIX, SCI and ENG modes: shift DISP A or F or S or E Enter
• MORE menu: you have NEXTP, why not PRIME?
• what's the usage of alpha on the Enter key?
• there is H.MS : is it as on the 34S just affecting the display or is it like ->H.MS and in this case where is the inverse function ->H ?
  

Answers in the same order:

• I recommend using ENTER x for x²; it's fast, simple, and the one level lost doesn't matter with 8 stack levels.
• OK. Good idea.
• NEXTP returns the same information If you see the same number as before you know it's a prime.
• H.MS is as on the 34S (the function set is a pure subset of the 34S'). I'll print an H in front of .d ...
  

d:-)

[Didier Lachieze]

(01-31-2014 06:14 AM)walter b Wrote:  Answers in the same order:

• I recommend using ENTER x for x²; it's fast, simple, and the one level lost doesn't matter with 8 stack levels.
• OK. Good idea.
• NEXTP returns the same information If you see the same number as before you know it's a prime.
• H.MS is as on the 34S (the function set is a pure subset of the 34S'). I'll print an H in front of .d ...
  

d:-)

• NEXTP: This is not what the 34S manual says: "Returns the next prime number greater than x." , and on my 34S: 11 NEXTP returns 13
• I'm wondering if ->H.MS with ->H as on vintage HP RPN calcs would not be preferable to H.MS
  

[walter b]

Good ideas. Will think about them.

d:-)

[Paul Dale]

Flags are pointless on a non-programmable. 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

[Paul Dale]

10 GP registers save a keystroke to access each one. That plus, A, B, C, D, I, J & K should be sufficient for a non-programmable.


- Pauli

[walter b]

OK, that's a reason Will mean 17 gp registers for traditionalists and 13 for worry-free RPN calculations. So be it.

d:-)

(How about using <Quote> for responding to a certain post?)

[Paul Dale]

No need to quote, I posted immediately after you
Got to keep the Internet clean and redundancy free after all


- Pauli

[walter b]

Time and location are two different aspects of time-space continua

[walter b]

OK, second try:

   

d:-)

[d b]

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.

[Jonathan Cameron]

(01-31-2014 09:53 PM)walter b Wrote:  OK, second try

Very nice. I like it. But I did have a few VERY minor quibles:

• Why not spell out LG to LOG?
• I liked having X<> as the shift of X<>Y. My inclination would be to swap it back so that "MORE" is shift-STO and X<> is shift-X<>Y (like you had it originally).
  

I agree with dumping RMDR in favor of X^2!

Nice, and a good improvement over my suggestion.

-Jonathan

[Jonathan Cameron]

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...

[Gene]

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. :-)

[walter b]

(01-31-2014 10:40 PM)Jonathan Cameron Wrote:  Very nice. I like it. But I did have a few VERY minor quibles:

• Why not spell out LG to LOG?
• I liked having X<> as the shift of X<>Y. My inclination would be to swap it back so that "MORE" is shift-STO and X<> is shift-X<>Y (like you had it originally).
  

I agree with dumping RMDR in favor of X^2!

Nice, and a good improvement over my suggestion.

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:-)

[Jonathan Cameron]

(02-01-2014 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 (shift-X<>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

[walter b]

(01-31-2014 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 ):

• For sake of tidiness.
• Eric has the program for cutting the WP 34S overlays anyway. He can use the same for cutting the new ones.
• The space on slanted key fronts is ... ummh ... far more limited than on the background.
• Do you really prefer a mess like e.g. ->RECB ?
• Letter sequence in the alphabet will hardly change again; the order of the keys may ...
  

HTH

d:-I