I saw the video, then remembered that I had an old Faber Castell 2/82, dug it out, and indeed, the one I have is the model in the video, with the “worst scales ever!” I bought it used 12 years ago when I was starting my little collection, and I got it in mint condition for a really good price compared to the 2/82N or 2/83, let alone the 2/83N. Now I know why!
Completely agree. I have one that I bought at a garage sale for next to nothing. But it's scale layout is hopeless. A shame because the mechanical quality is high. I have a modest collection of slide rules including the famed Faber-Castell 2/83N, but the ones I invariably grab when I actually have something to calculate on a slide rule are the Post Versalog or the Hemmi 259D. There's something about those Japanese bamboo rules - the clarity of the scales and numbering and the smoothness of the slider movement. Being a physician, I alctually use a log-log slide rule professionally. Some of my patients insist on taking a tablet every 4th or 8th hour even though the half life in the body of the drug in question is 48-72 hours. It's my experience that the slide rule in my hand strengthens my credability for these patient when I do a quick calculation of how much is actually still in left the body after those 4 or 8 hours. Aside for that, it's also useful for a quick and dirty calculation of compound interests. For amortizations and monthly payments on your house loan? Forget it, there's much faster apps for your smartphone (or - if it has to be retro - the HP 12C pocket calculator).
Someone who NEVER LEARNED to use a Pocket Calculator. These were all a Teenager in 1950's could Afford!$12.99+ tax was MORE THAN a Days Work, The $1.25 Minimun Wage wasnot until 1964. People made $ 0.75 Cents an hour in 1956. Smart People learned how to USE WHAT WAS AVAILABLE!
Oh no, I've sunk to new depths. I'm digging out my old slide rules (Post 1444-K and Post 1460) and am watching CZcams videos of others using and discussing slide rules. I guess the Chemical Engineer (Purdue U - go Boilers) in me just won't quit.
A good thing about the 2/82 layout is that the CF and DF scales are in the same positions on the back side as the C and D scales in the front. This makes it easier to work proportion problems without having to mentally flip what is the numerator and what is the denominator. When I use the 2/82 for this type of problems, I use C and CF for the numerator, D and DF for the denominator, and in this way the numerator is always above the numerator. I find this an advantage over the Versalog layout for this type of problems.
IT STURS PAINT JUST AS WELL AS THE 2/82N I worked in the engineering field during the time of use of these rules. you have the same complaint as we did. the rule was quality but hard to use, those who stuck to using it did so to feed their feeling of superiority, perhaps they drove BMWs. the rule was not popular as it was expensive and a post 1460 was a far superior layout. even the K&E which is what I used was easier to use. they went so far as to give away the 62/82 , for a short time, to just about any engineer that would take one. they said the w scales made the smaller version equal to the 10" . only if you had superior vision. as to why Faber-Castell laid out the rule like they did, I think they had in mind a specific niche market that would use that layout and that niche never materialized. Engineers would wind up having two rules if one was a Faber-Castell. one for show and one for go. yes a slide rule was a status symbol. Picket was kicking back in those days, but until the late 60's the things turned your hands black from hard use. we did not have air conditioning and sweat and magnesium evidently react.
Thanks for this comment! It's nice to hear a historical perspective from someone who lived it! What field of engineering did you work in, and what years? I wonder if it's possible to find any U.S. sales numbers for the major brands in that era.
I'll agree that it isn't a well-thought-out layout, but some of its flaws can be ameliorated. One can take the slide out of the rule, and put it in backwards, to have the C scale on the same side as the log-log scales, and the ST scale on the side as the trig scales. And then put the slide back in normally for ordinary multiplication, and the use of most of the scales.
Seems they’ve done a revision of the 2/82 that have a similar layout of the small one you’ve shown (no other marking for a year or revision), but definitively ‘improved’.
Wonder what version I have? Looks a bit different from your full-size example. My C & D are tinted green. My full-size rule looks similar to your short pocket scale without any W scales. Faber-Castell Says 2/82 (Made in Germany) Front: L, T1, T2, A, B , BI, CI, C, D, ST, S, P Rear: LL03, LL02, LL01, K, K', C, CIF, CF, DF, LL1, LL2, LL3
A/B can also be used for this purpose though -- i.e. everything on scale without adjusting solution method or swapping indices. I think both on this rule and on the Pickett rule the intention is to enable fast calculations involving cube roots. The Spanish FC manual makes no mention of using K/K' as you suggest.
@@ProfessorHerning Question is what is darmstadt system. I have three Logarex rules (Czechoslovakia) which are almost copies of various German designs and bought them basically to get somewhat different ones. Two bigger have L,P,K,A,[B,CI,C],D,S,T,ST scales on front and are very similar on this side. Small one is missing ST scale and L is moved to slider below B. Non-duplex sliders are both marked Darmstadt and have LL1,LL2,LL3 on back of the slider and tables with constant on the back (conversion from metric to freedom unit, some densities, electric resistance, thermal dilatation,...). Duplex one is not marked as darmstadt and back has LL1,LL2,LL3,[CF,DF,CIF,C],D,LL01,LL02,LL03. Darmstadt rulers share hairlines for conversion between kW and pferdestarke (german HP) and c,d to convert diameter on C/D to circle area on A/B. Coversion constant sqrt(4/pi) is also marked as C on C scale (three times for area=1,10,100). Duplex ruler which is not marked darmstadt has kW-PS conversion on AB scales. Then there are some constant marked rho for conversion between degreesradians and minutes(mili?)radians.
Could this be the result of some "legal issues" related to patents related to the aristo (in the german/west europe market) and K&E (in USA)?? To take a different analogous example: the reliant robin is a "car" that exist due to some dumb UK laws that existed at the time that resulted in quite a good joke (all 3 wheels of it). Normally when something is built that looks stupid it would be either they had to rush it or there was some legal problems they had to get round (or a combination of both).
No, because European patent-laws did not allow to patent scales or their layouts. A logarithmic scale is not a original invention. You could only patent construction elements, like the "see through" window on the back of certain Darmstadt-rules, "invented" by Danish "Linex", or the gear-wheels in some circular IWA slide rules. You could register design-elements, for a limited time, like the colour-scheme and of course the name of the slide rule.
I have acquired a slide rule with a much worse scale set. I believe it to be a Relay 512 5". The scales are: Front: DF/CF, CI, C/D, A Back: S, L, T The tan scale is tied to the C and D scales. So far so good. However, the sin scale is a two decade scale, running from about 34' to 90°. The A scale thus gives 1/sin. Call me dim, but how on Earth are you meant to do trig calculations with this without multiple slide/cursor movements? I would really appreciate any workarounds you could offer.
@@ProfessorHerning I'm not sure how flipping the slide would benefit. I can see no way out of this scale set madness! This HAS to be the worst so far. Or am I being thick?
I saw the video, then remembered that I had an old Faber Castell 2/82, dug it out, and indeed, the one I have is the model in the video, with the “worst scales ever!” I bought it used 12 years ago when I was starting my little collection, and I got it in mint condition for a really good price compared to the 2/82N or 2/83, let alone the 2/83N. Now I know why!
Completely agree. I have one that I bought at a garage sale for next to nothing. But it's scale layout is hopeless. A shame because the mechanical quality is high. I have a modest collection of slide rules including the famed Faber-Castell 2/83N, but the ones I invariably grab when I actually have something to calculate on a slide rule are the Post Versalog or the Hemmi 259D. There's something about those Japanese bamboo rules - the clarity of the scales and numbering and the smoothness of the slider movement. Being a physician, I alctually use a log-log slide rule professionally. Some of my patients insist on taking a tablet every 4th or 8th hour even though the half life in the body of the drug in question is 48-72 hours. It's my experience that the slide rule in my hand strengthens my credability for these patient when I do a quick calculation of how much is actually still in left the body after those 4 or 8 hours. Aside for that, it's also useful for a quick and dirty calculation of compound interests. For amortizations and monthly payments on your house loan? Forget it, there's much faster apps for your smartphone (or - if it has to be retro - the HP 12C pocket calculator).
Someone who NEVER LEARNED to use a Pocket Calculator. These were all a Teenager in 1950's could Afford!$12.99+ tax was MORE THAN a Days Work, The $1.25 Minimun Wage wasnot until 1964.
People made $ 0.75 Cents an hour in 1956.
Smart People learned how to USE WHAT WAS AVAILABLE!
Oh no, I've sunk to new depths. I'm digging out my old slide rules (Post 1444-K and Post 1460) and am watching CZcams videos of others using and discussing slide rules. I guess the Chemical Engineer (Purdue U - go Boilers) in me just won't quit.
A good thing about the 2/82 layout is that the CF and DF scales are in the same positions on the back side as the C and D scales in the front. This makes it easier to work proportion problems without having to mentally flip what is the numerator and what is the denominator. When I use the 2/82 for this type of problems, I use C and CF for the numerator, D and DF for the denominator, and in this way the numerator is always above the numerator. I find this an advantage over the Versalog layout for this type of problems.
IT STURS PAINT JUST AS WELL AS THE 2/82N I worked in the engineering field during the time of use of these rules. you have the same complaint as we did. the rule was quality but hard to use, those who stuck to using it did so to feed their feeling of superiority, perhaps they drove BMWs. the rule was not popular as it was expensive and a post 1460 was a far superior layout. even the K&E which is what I used was easier to use. they went so far as to give away the 62/82 , for a short time, to just about any engineer that would take one. they said the w scales made the smaller version equal to the 10" . only if you had superior vision. as to why Faber-Castell laid out the rule like they did, I think they had in mind a specific niche market that would use that layout and that niche never materialized. Engineers would wind up having two rules if one was a Faber-Castell. one for show and one for go. yes a slide rule was a status symbol. Picket was kicking back in those days, but until the late 60's the things turned your hands black from hard use. we did not have air conditioning and sweat and magnesium evidently react.
Thanks for this comment! It's nice to hear a historical perspective from someone who lived it! What field of engineering did you work in, and what years? I wonder if it's possible to find any U.S. sales numbers for the major brands in that era.
I'll agree that it isn't a well-thought-out layout, but some of its flaws can be ameliorated. One can take the slide out of the rule, and put it in backwards, to have the C scale on the same side as the log-log scales, and the ST scale on the side as the trig scales. And then put the slide back in normally for ordinary multiplication, and the use of most of the scales.
It's certainly usable, but I wouldn't pick it if I had a choice.
Instead of flipping the whole thing over, can you remove the slide and put it in upside down to get C on the same side as the log scales?
Yes, you could flip the slide over.
But if I really had to use this rule, I'd probably use CF a lot with the LLs.
Well, you certainly figured out why it was an early/phased-out model! Thanks for the interesting video.
Seems they’ve done a revision of the 2/82 that have a similar layout of the small one you’ve shown (no other marking for a year or revision), but definitively ‘improved’.
Wonder what version I have? Looks a bit different from your full-size example. My C & D are tinted green. My full-size rule looks similar to your short pocket scale without any W scales.
Faber-Castell Says 2/82 (Made in Germany)
Front: L, T1, T2, A, B , BI, CI, C, D, ST, S, P
Rear: LL03, LL02, LL01, K, K', C, CIF, CF, DF, LL1, LL2, LL3
The K/K' scale allows very fast calculations albeit with loss of precision, and can be compared to the Pickett Texas Speed Rule.
A/B can also be used for this purpose though -- i.e. everything on scale without adjusting solution method or swapping indices. I think both on this rule and on the Pickett rule the intention is to enable fast calculations involving cube roots. The Spanish FC manual makes no mention of using K/K' as you suggest.
Duly noted and thank you. I think this is why the Darmstadts and their descendants had the BI scale. Did anyone ever make a KI scale?
I'm not sure about KI. If this rule had it, there would be a nice symmetry of logarithmic scales.
And yes, I think you're right about the Darmstadts. BI can allow you to emulate the folded scales at lower resolution.
@@ProfessorHerning Question is what is darmstadt system. I have three Logarex rules (Czechoslovakia) which are almost copies of various German designs and bought them basically to get somewhat different ones. Two bigger have L,P,K,A,[B,CI,C],D,S,T,ST scales on front and are very similar on this side. Small one is missing ST scale and L is moved to slider below B. Non-duplex sliders are both marked Darmstadt and have LL1,LL2,LL3 on back of the slider and tables with constant on the back (conversion from metric to freedom unit, some densities, electric resistance, thermal dilatation,...). Duplex one is not marked as darmstadt and back has LL1,LL2,LL3,[CF,DF,CIF,C],D,LL01,LL02,LL03.
Darmstadt rulers share hairlines for conversion between kW and pferdestarke (german HP) and c,d to convert diameter on C/D to circle area on A/B. Coversion constant sqrt(4/pi) is also marked as C on C scale (three times for area=1,10,100). Duplex ruler which is not marked darmstadt has kW-PS conversion on AB scales. Then there are some constant marked rho for conversion between degreesradians and minutes(mili?)radians.
Could this be the result of some "legal issues" related to patents related to the aristo (in the german/west europe market) and K&E (in USA)?? To take a different analogous example: the reliant robin is a "car" that exist due to some dumb UK laws that existed at the time that resulted in quite a good joke (all 3 wheels of it). Normally when something is built that looks stupid it would be either they had to rush it or there was some legal problems they had to get round (or a combination of both).
It would make sense of things if perhaps a duplex design with the usual folded scale layout was patented.
No, because European patent-laws did not allow to patent scales or their layouts. A logarithmic scale is not a original invention. You could only patent construction elements, like the "see through" window on the back of certain Darmstadt-rules, "invented" by Danish "Linex", or the gear-wheels in some circular IWA slide rules.
You could register design-elements, for a limited time, like the colour-scheme and of course the name of the slide rule.
I have acquired a slide rule with a much worse scale set. I believe it to be a Relay 512 5". The scales are:
Front: DF/CF, CI, C/D, A
Back: S, L, T
The tan scale is tied to the C and D scales. So far so good. However, the sin scale is a two decade scale, running from about 34' to 90°. The A scale thus gives 1/sin.
Call me dim, but how on Earth are you meant to do trig calculations with this without multiple slide/cursor movements?
I would really appreciate any workarounds you could offer.
Can you flip the slide, or are you trying to do trig using a window?
@@ProfessorHerning It has one window on the rhs but the slide can be flipped.
@@ProfessorHerning I'm not sure how flipping the slide would benefit. I can see no way out of this scale set madness! This HAS to be the worst so far. Or am I being thick?
Can I get the Cursor for my slide rule 6 inches long