I wonder if any of the more scientifically minded people on here could help me, please.

[Horsa]

This is the easier question you've been wanting. Well, it will be for you 2 gentlemen anyway as I get the impression you're a bit older than me. It's more maths than science though I'm thinking. I've just been listening to a nice, old song. It mentions a slide-rule. I'm too young to remember what 1 of those is. We never used them. What is/was a slide-rule & what is/was it for, please?

 

[Chris Koziarz]

This is the easier question you've been wanting. Well, it will be for you 2 gentlemen anyway as I get the impression you're a bit older than me. It's more maths than science though I'm thinking. I've just been listening to a nice, old song. It mentions a slide-rule. I'm too young to remember what 1 of those is. We never used them. What is/was a slide-rule & what is/was it for, please?

These were the precursors of calculators in the schools. I've never used one because calculators were already widely available but my older brother did. They've been used mainly to multiply two numbers. There was a ruler with numbers encoded log scale; I don't remember precisely but looking at inet images it must have been base-10 i.e. log(). The basic property:
log(x*y) = log(x) + log(y)
allowed to see the result of multiplication (x*y) by sliding the middle ruler thus seeing the addition of two logarithms, as described in wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slide_rule#Multiplication
Division was obviously by subtracting the two logarithms.

If you look closer at an example here:
http://www.antiquark.com/sliderule/sim/n909es/virtual-n909-es.html
you notice that it contains several different rulers.

Rulers A-B are squares of rulers C-D. Ruler K (top) is a power of 3 of ruler CD. So looking at those, you can see the squares and the cubes of the numbers on C-D. Of course you'll see the square roots & cube roots if u look in opposite direction. You don't need to move the slider because only one number is involved.

Ruler L (bottom) is linear, so by looking at it and at C-D, you can see log-10 values or, if you look opposite, you can see power-10 i.e. exp10() values. Other powers and logs can be seen using the slide to multiply/divide by base adjustment, according to known equations, e.g.:
ln x = log x / log e
where log e ~= 0.4343
So u can calculate natural logarithm by seeing log-10 from L to D and, using the slider and ruler C, deduct 0.43 (that's probably as much accuracy as your eye can perceive).

I think rulers T & S (middle of the slider) are scaled so than you can see trigonometric functions and appears to be labelled in degrees (up to 45 on ruler T - maybe tan(); and up to 90 on ruler S - maybe sin())
but I see this one for the first time so I'm not sure.
C1 appears to be flipped C, so u can seethe reciprocals (1/x) there.

If you hit flip to the other side button, you see the chart of all conversions between imperial and metric units, incl temperature. Very handy stuff that I haven't seen yet. Needless to say the slide rulers (already half-antics) that I used to see as kid were not as complete as this example.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

If you want to know when & why slide rules became useless antics, their demise came in late 70s due to this product:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TI-30
I'm especially fond of it because when I put my hand on it (exactly as pictured in wiki with diode 7-segment display) as a young kid (I think it came to Poland in early 80s), I treated it like a precious little miracle. I'd say this TI-30 was the main reason I decided to study electrical engineering & computer science: this little toy has shaped my pro life.
Unsurprisingly, upgraded models have been produced by TI until 2013 but the original one will always look the best for me. I think improved versions with LCD display were available in Europe before (since 1980) but I got mine an original: probably a second hand sale from someone wealthy who upgraded to LCD. Back then $25 for us was something like 2 month salary.

 

[Horsa]

These were the precursors of calculators in the schools. I've never used one because calculators were already widely available but my older brother did. They've been used mainly to multiply two numbers. There was a ruler with numbers encoded log scale; I don't remember precisely but looking at inet images it must have been base-10 i.e. log(). The basic property:
log(x*y) = log(x) + log(y)
allowed to see the result of multiplication (x*y) by sliding the middle ruler thus seeing the addition of two logarithms, as described in wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slide_rule#Multiplication
Division was obviously by subtracting the two logarithms.

If you look closer at an example here:
http://www.antiquark.com/sliderule/sim/n909es/virtual-n909-es.html
you notice that it contains several different rulers.

Rulers A-B are squares of rulers C-D. Ruler K (top) is a power of 3 of ruler CD. So looking at those, you can see the squares and the cubes of the numbers on C-D. Of course you'll see the square roots & cube roots if u look in opposite direction. You don't need to move the slider because only one number is involved.

Ruler L (bottom) is linear, so by looking at it and at C-D, you can see log-10 values or, if you look opposite, you can see power-10 i.e. exp10() values. Other powers and logs can be seen using the slide to multiply/divide by base adjustment, according to known equations, e.g.:
ln x = log x / log e
where log e ~= 0.4343
So u can calculate natural logarithm by seeing log-10 from L to D and, using the slider and ruler C, deduct 0.43 (that's probably as much accuracy as your eye can perceive).

I think rulers T & S (middle of the slider) are scaled so than you can see trigonometric functions and appears to be labelled in degrees (up to 45 on ruler T - maybe tan(); and up to 90 on ruler S - maybe sin())
but I see this one for the first time so I'm not sure.
C1 appears to be flipped C, so u can seethe reciprocals (1/x) there.

If you hit flip to the other side button, you see the chart of all conversions between imperial and metric units, incl temperature. Very handy stuff that I haven't seen yet. Needless to say the slide rulers (already half-antics) that I used to see as kid were not as complete as this example.

Thank you very much for the information. I thought before calculators came out people worked things out on paper. We were only allowed to use calculators for certain calculations. Most of the time we had to use the old pen & paper method. We spent ages doing long multiplication & long division.

 

[Horsa]

If you want to know when & why slide rules became useless antics, their demise came in late 70s due to this product:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TI-30
I'm especially fond of it because when I put my hand on it (exactly as pictured in wiki with diode 7-segment display) as a young kid (I think it came to Poland in early 80s), I treated it like a precious little miracle. I'd say this TI-30 was the main reason I decided to study electrical engineering & computer science: this little toy has shaped my pro life.
Unsurprisingly, upgraded models have been produced by TI until 2013 but the original one will always look the best for me. I think improved versions with LCD display were available in Europe before (since 1980) but I got mine an original: probably a second hand sale from someone wealthy who upgraded to LCD. Back then $25 for us was something like 2 month salary.

I understand why slide rules became obsolete. I enjoyed using & learning to use scientific calculators too when we were allowed to. My maths teachers were big pen & paper fans whose motto was "We want to see your working out in pen & paper mode".

 

[Horsa]

I think this is absolutely amazing. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/offb...ts-eyes-closed/ar-BBT675C?ocid=spartanntp_edu What do you think?

 

[Chris Koziarz]

I understand why slide rules became obsolete. I enjoyed using & learning to use scientific calculators too when we were allowed to. My maths teachers were big pen & paper fans whose motto was "We want to see your working out in pen & paper mode".

Looks like you had a really conservative, I'd even say silly math teachers in your school.
My school education came a few years earlier (early to mid 1980s) , in a rural communist Poland. Despite such dire prerequisites, I had more modern experience than you did. My teachers were debating if pupils should use slide rules vs. calculators: mostly TI-30s, but old clumsy models with reverse Polish notation (easier to implement in early primitive circuits) also existed. Teachers were worried that calculators made pupils lazy (because using rulers required non-trivial thinking) and they were right. However that worry did not apply for me, because I understood slide rules (my older bro explained them to me) as well as my calculator. And obviously, I new what technology was about to win so I ignored the rulers. But there was no talking among my teachers about pen & paper: it would've been very silly.
I cannot imagine, how few years later, in N England, anyone could still teach the silliness of pen & paper arithmetic. Said few years later (late 80s), Sinclair Spectrum Z80 must have been well established on the market! So you could program any complex calculations, write little problem solving algorithms, and much much more! How anyone could multiply numbers on paper, is beyond me!

 

[Chris Koziarz]

I think this is absolutely amazing. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/offb...ts-eyes-closed/ar-BBT675C?ocid=spartanntp_edu What do you think?

The title is bad: does not reflect the content which is about extraordinary senses of all owls in general, not the uniqueness of vision of a single species.
There is no question owls are ultimate stealth predators. I knew about their senses already, although not everything. The most interesting is they avoided 2013 fires in CA and it appears their population was not affected by fires. How did they do it? Another sense?
It's no surprise to me that this happens to be your favourite bird.

 

[Horsa]

The title is bad: does not reflect the content which is about extraordinary senses of all owls in general, not the uniqueness of vision of a single species.
There is no question owls are ultimate stealth predators. I knew about their senses already, although not everything. The most interesting is they avoided 2013 fires in CA and it appears their population was not affected by fires. How did they do it? Another sense?
It's no surprise to me that this happens to be your favourite bird.

I agree. I saw & posted this before I had my 1st coffee so I wasn't quite with it. After coffee, I realised that not only is the title bad for the reasons you mentioned but also as eyes are how the animal family see (with the exception of bats, whales & dolphins who see through echo location) it's impossible that owls could see with their eyes closed.

I agree. I'm afraid I don't know unless you'll accept that they're absolutely amazing.

They are 1 of my favourite birds. I do have other favourite birds like parrots. Friends sent me personality tests for Native American spirit animal, Viking spirit animal & which animal fits your personality? tests for fun & I got owl in each 1. I wanted horse so rebelled but they said they thought owl suited me. When I looked at the description it did. I know you don't believe stuff like that. I don't either but it seemed such a coincidence especially when I love owls.

 

[Horsa]

Looks like you had a really conservative, I'd even say silly math teachers in your school.
My school education came a few years earlier (early to mid 1980s) , in a rural communist Poland. Despite such dire prerequisites, I had more modern experience than you did. My teachers were debating if pupils should use slide rules vs. calculators: mostly TI-30s, but old clumsy models with reverse Polish notation (easier to implement in early primitive circuits) also existed. Teachers were worried that calculators made pupils lazy (because using rulers required non-trivial thinking) and they were right. However that worry did not apply for me, because I understood slide rules (my older bro explained them to me) as well as my calculator. And obviously, I new what technology was about to win so I ignored the rulers. But there was no talking among my teachers about pen & paper: it would've been very silly.
I cannot imagine, how few years later, in N England, anyone could still teach the silliness of pen & paper arithmetic. Said few years later (late 80s), Sinclair Spectrum Z80 must have been well established on the market! So you could program any complex calculations, write little problem solving algorithms, and much much more! How anyone could multiply numbers on paper, is beyond me!

My Middle to High school education spanned from the early to late '90s. I think you had nice maths teachers in your schools. We had to do everything the hard way. When I 1st learnt multiplication in the late '80s we had to recite our time-tables until we knew them by heart before even putting pen to paper. I always had to do pen & paper arithmetic & still do. It's a habit I suppose. It gave us something to chew on for a bit I suppose.

 

[Horsa]

This is another nice, easy question for Chris. I'd heard about the Brumbie's (Australia's wild horses) ages back. Does he see any of them roaming about & what exactly does he know about them? I won't be too cheeky & ask him for a picture too.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

This is another nice, easy question for Chris. I'd heard about the Brumbie's (Australia's wild horses) ages back. Does he see any of them roaming about & what exactly does he know about them? I won't be too cheeky & ask him for a picture too.

I don't have a picture but I've seen them while walking in the alps. I've also heard story of two saddled horses freshly escaped from the camp, with despaired owner distributing flyers and asking if anyone has seen them horses. Futile. I didn't like that camp: so many large cars towing those horse carriages on dirt roads with lots of noise. No wonder few lucky ones (who have suffered enough during several hundred km trip) escape to the wild.
The population of brumbies is ATM ~400K, the largest in the world, larger than number of mustangs in America. I think we have ~ the same number of non-wild horses. Brumbies can fluctuate from year to year by some 20%, depending on weather conditions. In general their population would be even higher, but culling program is executed at times.
Apart from alps, there are no brumbies in NSW (maybe few in New England) so I don't see them. The are far more of them in NT and North QLD, where they escaped from big farms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brumby#/media/File:Brumby.jpg

 

[Horsa]

I don't have a picture but I've seen them while walking in the alps. I've also heard story of two saddled horses freshly escaped from the camp, with despaired owner distributing flyers and asking if anyone has seen them horses. Futile. I didn't like that camp: so many large cars towing those horse carriages on dirt roads with lots of noise. No wonder few lucky ones (who have suffered enough during several hundred km trip) escape to the wild.
The population of brumbies is ATM ~400K, the largest in the world, larger than number of mustangs in America. I think we have ~ the same number of non-wild horses. Brumbies can fluctuate from year to year by some 20%, depending on weather conditions. In general their population would be even higher, but culling program is executed at times.
Apart from alps, there are no brumbies in NSW (maybe few in New England) so I don't see them. The are far more of them in NT and North QLD, where they escaped from big farms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brumby#/media/File:Brumby.jpg

Thank you very much for the information. You'll be more familiar with Bower birds, budgies, cockatoos, cockatiels, lovebirds, parakeets, koalas, kangaroos & wallabies then.

 

[mrzz]

These were the precursors of calculators in the schools. I've never used one because calculators were already widely available but my older brother did. They've been used mainly to multiply two numbers. There was a ruler with numbers encoded log scale; I don't remember precisely but looking at inet images it must have been base-10 i.e. log(). The basic property:
log(x*y) = log(x) + log(y)
allowed to see the result of multiplication (x*y) by sliding the middle ruler thus seeing the addition of two logarithms, as described in wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slide_rule#Multiplication
Division was obviously by subtracting the two logarithms.

If you look closer at an example here:
http://www.antiquark.com/sliderule/sim/n909es/virtual-n909-es.html
you notice that it contains several different rulers.

Rulers A-B are squares of rulers C-D. Ruler K (top) is a power of 3 of ruler CD. So looking at those, you can see the squares and the cubes of the numbers on C-D. Of course you'll see the square roots & cube roots if u look in opposite direction. You don't need to move the slider because only one number is involved.

Ruler L (bottom) is linear, so by looking at it and at C-D, you can see log-10 values or, if you look opposite, you can see power-10 i.e. exp10() values. Other powers and logs can be seen using the slide to multiply/divide by base adjustment, according to known equations, e.g.:
ln x = log x / log e
where log e ~= 0.4343
So u can calculate natural logarithm by seeing log-10 from L to D and, using the slider and ruler C, deduct 0.43 (that's probably as much accuracy as your eye can perceive).

I think rulers T & S (middle of the slider) are scaled so than you can see trigonometric functions and appears to be labelled in degrees (up to 45 on ruler T - maybe tan(); and up to 90 on ruler S - maybe sin())
but I see this one for the first time so I'm not sure.
C1 appears to be flipped C, so u can seethe reciprocals (1/x) there.

If you hit flip to the other side button, you see the chart of all conversions between imperial and metric units, incl temperature. Very handy stuff that I haven't seen yet. Needless to say the slide rulers (already half-antics) that I used to see as kid were not as complete as this example.

Thanks a lot for this post, Chris. From time to time I need some reminder that humans are the intelligent species on the planet and this post was exactly it this time.

I reckon we are about the same age, but I never used those rulers. My father is still a big enthusiast, though. To even understand how a ruler works someone needs to know way more math than the average kid (let alone adult) of today's time. On one hand, I understand that how the "new x old" dichotomy works, that with improving technology people lose some abilities in favor of new ones, and, historically, this has been a good thing.

But will it ever be? I mean, why at some point we lose something that we shouldn't? I guess that when we enter a reality where those rulers start not even to make sense for most, it is the first step in this direction. We might end up losing something that it is simply too valuable, and the only thing that we get in return is the ability to get more "likes"...

Damn, now I need another reminder that humans are intelligent.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

Thanks a lot for this post, Chris. From time to time I need some reminder that humans are the intelligent species on the planet and this post was exactly it this time.

I reckon we are about the same age, but I never used those rulers. My father is still a big enthusiast, though. To even understand how a ruler works someone needs to know way more math than the average kid (let alone adult) of today's time. On one hand, I understand that how the "new x old" dichotomy works, that with improving technology people lose some abilities in favor of new ones, and, historically, this has been a good thing.

But will it ever be? I mean, why at some point we lose something that we shouldn't? I guess that when we enter a reality where those rulers start not even to make sense for most, it is the first step in this direction. We might end up losing something that it is simply too valuable, and the only thing that we get in return is the ability to get more "likes"...

Damn, now I need another reminder that humans are intelligent.

No wonder your dad is enthusiast: they've been very popular from 1940s through 60s, until the invention of transistor allowed digital calculators to compete. My dad also was a fan,although I laughed at him. Well, after growing out of teenage years I learned to appreciate everybody's wisdom (not just may dad's).
Note that slide ruler is like an "analog calculator" with precision limited by an eye-sight". You could imagine tot extend the precision by making it bigger, markings denser or imprinted with tiny infusion of fluorescent crystals and by observing the scale made of said tiny crystals through microscope. Such "super slider" would cost millions but still would not match the precision of 10 decimal digits by TI-30.
That was the very first instance of digital technology making analog technology redundant. And very obviously so from the very start. Other countless examples follow: radio, TV, phone, photography, etc.

 

[Horsa]

Thanks a lot for this post, Chris. From time to time I need some reminder that humans are the intelligent species on the planet and this post was exactly it this time.

I reckon we are about the same age, but I never used those rulers. My father is still a big enthusiast, though. To even understand how a ruler works someone needs to know way more math than the average kid (let alone adult) of today's time. On one hand, I understand that how the "new x old" dichotomy works, that with improving technology people lose some abilities in favor of new ones, and, historically, this has been a good thing.

But will it ever be? I mean, why at some point we lose something that we shouldn't? I guess that when we enter a reality where those rulers start not even to make sense for most, it is the first step in this direction. We might end up losing something that it is simply too valuable, and the only thing that we get in return is the ability to get more "likes"...

Damn, now I need another reminder that humans are intelligent.

I still think using that slide-rule would be a lot easier than using the pen & paper method. (I'll admit I do cheat & use a calculator or spreadsheet sometimes.) I'm your average adult & I did daily & weekly sales records & weekly figures sheets the old way & only needed a calculator for the A.S.P.'s (average sales prices).

From what Chris said.
& the information he shared & I read.
I reckon I could use a slide rule if I had a go.
Unless you've tried to do something whether you can do it, you don't know.

Look at all the things we've discovered & created through time for that reminder. The next most intelligent animals wouldn't have been able to discover & create all those things. Maybe apes have shown that they're capable of tool use & both apes & birds have shown they can communicate but that's just a drop in the ocean compared to what we've done. I'll make a list with a few examples. The most primitive things we did feature 1st.

1. We discovered how to build fires.
2. We discovered how to build.
3. We created wheels.
4. We created languages.
5. We learnt how to read & write.
6. We came up with numerical systems.
7. We came up with lots of theories which developed the medicines of the time & went on to advance medicine.
8. We invented central heating & baths.
9. We invented drainage systems.
10. We invented McAdamisation.
11. We invented the bicycle, car & aeroplane.
12. We invented computers. etc. & so the list goes on.

 

[Horsa]

No wonder you guys get sick of me asking questions & acting daft sometimes. Some of the questions I ask I could either work out myself or you've answered while answering other questions so sometimes you feel as though you're wasting your time answering me when all I'd have to do is look back through your answers or think about everything that has been discussed. In my defence though I say a lot & read a lot so even though I have a decent memory I'm forced to forget some things & if I forgot that you'd answered a certain question why would I look back when you might not have & it might be more worthwhile to ask the question or read a book in order to find the answer.

I'm very sorry guys.

 

[Horsa]

I've got a more light-hearted question here.

When the royal family break wind is everyone forbidden to ignore it because noble gasses shouldn't get a reaction? Lol.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

I've got a more light-hearted question here.

When the royal family break wind is everyone forbidden to ignore it because noble gasses shouldn't get a reaction? Lol.

Well, royal family members are humans not only physically but also mentally. E.g. the list of grammar mistakes commited by Her Majesty (in written, formal, well controlled speech) is documented here:
https://stroppyeditor.wordpress.com/2012/06/01/the-queens-english/
and it's not a complete list; I've heard more examples from 2000s onward, after I switched from American to Australian dialect and thought Her Majesty should be a role model for me, in both pronunciation & writing. I quickly realised I was wrong.
As a child, I had similar thoughts about people I revered: clergy. Eventually my thoughts started to shape more serious as I grew: what the reverend people do with their sexual libido while in celibacy (in catholic church)? Then, when I looked at those young, neat nuns, some of them serving as cleaners in the vicar's residence, I thought: "boy, how nice, sexy girls they are, the vicar would be very happy to have this girl if he was allowed!". I didn't realise that my thoughts were actually true.
So we are all humans, does not matter if noble or holy. Francis has recently admitted that his holy herd commits sins, sometimes gravely ones. I wonder if he ever admits that the dogma of his own infallibiliity does not make sense and finally rescinds it. Only he can legally do it. So far he keeps admitting he's a sinner but does not act to correct a stupid dogma contradicting him, because said dogma teaches that "pope's Infallibility means more than exemption from actual error; it means exemption from the possibility of error".
Back to 'noble' people: their influence on modern society is confined to representative functions only. Which is good. We can be proud how well they represent our traditions & laugh at their mistakes and gaffes at the same time. Same applies to my catholic tradition: my religious leaders look good, even inspiring to some, but to me they are nothing but representatives of a redundant emotive spectacle.

 

[Horsa]

Well, royal family members are humans not only physically but also mentally. E.g. the list of grammar mistakes commited by Her Majesty (in written, formal, well controlled speech) is documented here:
https://stroppyeditor.wordpress.com/2012/06/01/the-queens-english/
and it's not a complete list; I've heard more examples from 2000s onward, after I switched from American to Australian dialect and thought Her Majesty should be a role model for me, in both pronunciation & writing. I quickly realised I was wrong.
As a child, I had similar thoughts about people I revered: clergy. Eventually my thoughts started to shape more serious as I grew: what the reverend people do with their sexual libido while in celibacy (in catholic church)? Then, when I looked at those young, neat nuns, some of them serving as cleaners in the vicar's residence, I thought: "boy, how nice, sexy girls they are, the vicar would be very happy to have this girl if he was allowed!". I didn't realise that my thoughts were actually true.
So we are all humans, does not matter if noble or holy. Francis has recently admitted that his holy herd commits sins, sometimes gravely ones. I wonder if he ever admits that the dogma of his own infallibiliity does not make sense and finally rescinds it. Only he can legally do it. So far he keeps admitting he's a sinner but does not act to correct a stupid dogma contradicting him, because said dogma teaches that "pope's Infallibility means more than exemption from actual error; it means exemption from the possibility of error".
Back to 'noble' people: their influence on modern society is confined to representative functions only. Which is good. We can be proud how well they represent our traditions & laugh at their mistakes and gaffes at the same time. Same applies to my catholic tradition: my religious leaders look good, even inspiring to some, but to me they are nothing but representatives of a redundant emotive spectacle.

Chris, it was a joke. I mentioned that I was being a bit light-hearted.