@anonymous: "On my 48GX, unit conversion was very simple and quick.  input value,
press "F" key for unit, then shift "F" key for unit to convert to.
On the 49G+, it does not seem as quick.  Is there a shortcut for unit
conversion, or can someone point me to a program that makes it simple.
I convert inches to millimeters alot and something simple would be
great.
Thanks."
    @wplatt: ".> I convert inches to millimeters alot and something simple would be
<quote>
For that, why not << 25.4 * >>   'milli'   STO  and then put it in a CST
menu or put it on a user key?  {substitute whatever variable name you like;
put it in whatever directory you like etc}
Regards,
Bill"
    @anonymous: "Great suggestion for inch to millimeter.  But, what if I wanted to do
other units?  Does anyone have a program?
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:44:52 -0400, "William R. Platt"
<quote>"
    @DROP_vpn: "news:<email_address>
<quote>
X
You don't need a program for that the unit system works!
IN RPL mode that is.
If mm is not build-in, use Wolfgang Rautenbergs UnitMan to add it.
You may also use CST eg. custom MENU with 1_mm and it will work
James 007 may give you a more detailed answer
I'm tired since it's past midnight local time
[VPN]"
    @HeikoArnemann: ""Veli-Pekka Nousiainen" <email_address> schrieb
<quote>
Yes, Unitman is recommanded.
<url>
Do not re-invent the wheel ;-)
..Heiko"
    @thereisnoone: "It's not quick, but if you select the 'Time' menu (Right-shift) 9 and NXT
The menu will have the options for ->HMS and HMS->, etc.  Be sure to have
Soft Menus selected. (Flag -117).
PhreePhly
news:<email_address>
<quote>"
    @jmprange: "<quote>
What's to say? Of course very often I know that I'm working with
lengths, even if I'm not using units such as 1_in or 1_mm. I think my
two very first programs for the 28S were probably << 25.4 * >> and
<< 25.4 / >>. Of course these days the industry has pretty well
completed the switch to all metric units, so almost all lengths are in
mm in the first place, and there's seldom any need for me to convert
from or to inches now.
But I do still have a need for conversions involving such oddities as
kip (kilopound), ksi (kilopound per square inch), ton(force), and so
on.
I don't see any problem with unit conversions on the 49g+ though. To
me, they seem to work just the same as on previous models.
Regards,
James"
    @anonymous: "I didn't say it wouldn't work.  It's just not nearly as quick as on my
HP48. There is not 4-5 times the key strokes.  I used mm-inch as an
example.  I do convert it a lot, but I also do a lot of other
conversions.  
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 00:12:34 +0300, "Veli-Pekka Nousiainen"
<quote>"
    @anonymous: "This looks like what I'm after.  Is there any way you can explain what
these programs are doing.  Do they work together?  Sorry but I'm just
learning how to program.  What does the x03E do?
Mike 
<quote>"
    @anonymous: "Thanks, it works great when I type it correctly.  In the x03E routine
I had ...TYPE 3... instead of ...TYPE 13...
Thanks again.
Mike
<quote>"
    @jmprange: "<quote>
<snip>
Ok, you're talking about a combination of values in two units (mass
and acceleration) converted into a value in a single unit (force).
Reasoning out the basic physics, acceleration must be directly
proportion to force and inversely proportional to mass, so force must
be directly proportional to mass times acceleration. We know that the
mass is 100_kg, and the acceleration is available from the constants
library as g CONST (which returns 9.80665_m/s^2 in SI units), so:
100_kg \<< g CONST * 1_N CONVERT \>> EVAL
should do it. I get 980.665_N as the result. Of course, in the "real
world" 100_kg must be be approximate, and the result must be rounded
accordingly. What do you get?
Regards,
James"
    @jmprange: "<quote>
No, the "backslash piece" is simply the beginning of a translation
code, as when you view or edit the decompiled program on the PC
(assuming full translation, of course). It's easier for me to type in
the translation code than to make an effort to type in the special
characters without the backslashes. For example, if I store my program
in a variable, then use Conn4x's "Edit as text", and then copy and
paste it to the newsreader's editor, it looks like this:
%%HP: T(3)A(R)F(.);
\<< g CONST * '1_N' CONVERT
\>>
Your program looks like this:
%%HP: T(3)A(R)F(.);
\<< \-> m
   \<< '9.81_m/s' '1_s' / m * '1_N' CONVERT
   \>>
\>>
If you want the program to be a "user-defined function", that is, so
you can call it by name as a prefix function within an algebraic, then
the local variable structure is required, but for a plain old RPL
program, there's no need for a local variable. Why go to the time and
trouble to create a local variable to take the argument from the
stack, then copy the variable's contents back to the stack and discard
the local variable? If the stack were especially deep, it might help
you keep track of what's where, but it's not needed at all for
something as simple as your program. Try this one instead:
%%HP: T(3)A(R)F(.);
\<< '9.81_m/s' '1_s' / * '1_N' CONVERT
\>>
Regards,
James"
    @anonymous: "Actually I was going to post that today.  I guess I got alittle ahead
of my self when I first posted.  I was trying out softmenus last night
and thought I would try unit conversion, and guess what.  It worked.
I was slightly embarrased.
MH
<quote>"
    @mokomull: "<quote>
But there does seem to be a shortcut!
RS 6 [UNITS]
F2 [LENG]
1
F6 [in]
LS F3 [mm]
That seems to convert it just right!  All you need to do is tag 
something as a unit, then press LeftShift and the unit you want!
-MrM"
    @jmprange: "<quote>
Golly gee, thanks ever so much for your ever helpful corrections on
these matters, Gene. I suppose that your commode must be just about
overflowing with wisdom regarding metrology.
I thought I made that clear in my post. I'm sorry that you didn't
notice
True enough, but I don't happen to know the local acceleration of
gravity wherever Surely happens to have his 100_kg mass suspended on a
cable. I suppose that I really should've included a disclaimer
regarding that.
Huh? I'd say that it has to do with physics, though obviously
metrology is involved in measuring anything. Isn't that much like
saying that, for example, the speed of sound is a concept of
metrology, not of physics? Or what about the speed of light? Obviously
very basic to the metrology of length, but I'd say that it's a concept
of physics, not of metrology.
But kilograms force already includes the acceleration due to gravity,
so I don't need g CONST for that conversion. Didn't you see the post
where I mentioned:
100_kgf 1_N CONVERT
Thank you for that information. I was very much aware that the
standard value for the acceleration due to gravity was only an
approximation, but didn't realize that it varied that much near the
surface of the earth. I certainly hope that civil engineers take due
account of this fact.
Sincerely,
James"
    @me: "<quote>
Much better solutions have already been given, but for this one, why not 
use '9.81_m/s^2' instead of 9.81_m/s 1_s /   ?"
    @gnygaard: "On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:55:12 -0400, "James M. Prange"
<quote>
No.
The acceleration of gravity (or better, acceleration of free fall) is
indeed a concept of physics.
The standard acceleration of free fall is not a concept of physics.
Stick to the International System of Units, and you never need a
*standard* acceleration of free fall.
Gene Nygaard
<url>"
    @jmprange: "<quote>
How so? Galileo and Isaac Newton weren't physicists?
It is local to the immediate vicinity of earth's surface, rather than
universal, but I hardly think that it's something that some trader,
surveyor, engineer, metrologist, standards setting committee, or
government authority invented, as would be the case with units of
measurement. It's very much a real physical effect. Once you've
defined units of time and distance, you can't do much about this value
at any particular location.
But I'll grant that the exact value agreed on as "standard" is no
doubt somewhat arbitrary.
But that's exactly where we *do* need to know the acceleration due to
gravity or whatever you wish to call it.
In SI, we have units of mass and units of force, and to determine how
much force is needed to restrain a mass from falling, we need to know
that acceleration.
In non-SI units, as well as pound (mass), we have the matching pound
(force) (and ton, kip, ounce, etc.) in the customary units, and even
an odd sort of non-SI "metric" unit, gram (force) to match gram
(mass), which have the standard acceleration built in to their
definitions, so there's no need to use the standard value to know, for
example, that a mass of one pound is restrained from falling by a
force of (approximately) one pound, at least here on earth.
But using the same or similar names for mass and force does have the
unfortunate effect of sometimes causing confusion between them.
The standard value is a very useful approximation. Did the ancients
even make any clear distinction between inertial mass and the force
due to gravity? They did manage some rather impressive engineering
feats considering the materials and power sources available to them. I
expect that compared to other approximations such as the strength of
materials, actual mass, other forces such as wind loading and even
minor earth tremors, the variation due to gravity for anything
actually supported by the earth would be relatively small.
I expect that colonists on the moon or Mars would soon set their own
appropriate "standard" values, if NASA or some other government
authority hasn't already done so.
Sincerely,
James"
    @gnygaard: "On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 08:56:15 -0400, "James M. Prange"
<quote>
What's your point?  They didn't have a standard acceleration of
gravity.  Nobody did before the 20th century, or maybe the last couple
of years of the 19th.
That's what I saida concept of metrology, not of physics.
You are confused.
The *local* acceleration of free fall varies with location.  The
*standard* acceleration of free fall does not.
At any particular location, it actually varies measurably
That's my whole point.
You need to know the actual acceleration.  An arbitrary *standard*
acceleration is of no use to you whatsoever.
But only loosely matching, of course.  Part of the problem with those
units, of course, is that people often lose sight of the fact that the
correlation isn't exact.  Even if you limit yourself to sea level on
Earth, if you have a mass of 1.0000 lb, you can have a force of
anywhere between 0.9973 lbf and 1.0026 lbf.
Throw in Mt. Chimborazo, the highest mountain on Earth (in both ways
relevant to this discussion), and you have an even greater variation.
Of course, when NASA tells us that the weight of the Apollo 11 at
liftoff of its ascent stage was 10776.6 lb, that's an entirely
different story.  At the time, the LM was only exerting around 1800
lbf.
<url>
That's precisely where you DO need a standard acceleration of free
fall.  If you don't use pounds force, and you don't use grams force,
you don't need a standard acceleration of gravity.
Because the actual local acceleration varies considerably, you need to
make a somewhat arbitrary choice of what acceleration you are going to
use, in conjunction with the mass standards which have always been
kept by our standards-keepers, to precisely define a unit of force.
Grams force were never well-defined units before the 20th century.  It
was in 1901 that the CGPM adopted the standard acceleration of 980
cm/s� for this purpose, making them well defined for the first time.
Pounds force were never well-defined units before then either, and
what's morethey don't even have an official definition today. We
often borrow the value which is official for defining grams force to
define pounds force as well, but we don't necessarily have to do so.
Other values are used as well, such as 32.16 ft/s�, a value you still
often see used in kinetic energy calcuations in ballistics.  Though
both pounds force and grams force had been used for a century or so
before the first use of a standard acceleration of gravity by anyone,
they were ill-defined units only used in low-precision applicaions (it
doesn't really matter much if the pressure in your boiler is 610
lbf/in� or 625 lbf/in�, for example).
What ancients are you talking about?  Even 200 years ago, the only
weighing devices anybody had ever used were balances.  Mass-measuring
devices, not force measuring devices.  Gravitational massbut nobody
has ever shown any difference between that and inertial mass, which
nobody at that time measured either.
It was all the result methods learned by trial and error until the
last couple of centuries.
Like I said, as long as you stick to SI, you have no use for any
"standard acceleration of gravity."  You only need that if you are
foolish enough to use pounds force or kilograms force.
Gene Nygaard
<url>"
{'source': 'USENET', 'other_information': '{"reply_count": 18, "forum_name": "comp.sys.hp48.20140922.mbox"}', 'file': 'data/output/usenet-comp.sys.parquet'}