On Jul 24, 9:36 am, arithmonic <djes...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 24 jul, 06:44, "sttscitr...@tesco.net" <sttscitr...@tesco.net> > wrote: > > > Your historical claim may well be true, but at > > least one poster states he has a reference predating your > > claim. It would be interesting if he could post the method > > he found in the Handbook > > It is not just a problem on the false and unethical statements of your > friend Grover Hughes who > allegued that my methods were exactly the same than those from > Eshbach's, 1945 > "Handbook of Engineering Fundamentals". > You endorsed his unethical claim and stated that he was right and my > methods were not new, at all. > > You and him are now facing nonethical, false and negligent statements > before the sci.math audience. > > Grover Hughes WILL NOT be able to prove his claim and you know that. > - > You and your friend Grover Hughes have not proved what you claimed > about Hurtwitz and Eshbach, that's why I repeat to you: > > NOTICE that your friend Grover Hughes have not shown any single proof > of what he claimed, and > left the discussion. what a cheek, indeed. That is totally unethical.
My, my! Leave town for a few days, and look what happened while my back was turned! I've never been so popular before, and all because I remarked that an old text showed how to extract cube roots! Well, here it is-- I'll do the best I can to type it in a form that I hope will be readable. If anyone's interested, I'll be happy to scan the page and email it directly to you-- just ask. Anyway, here's what page 2-04 of Handbook of Engineering Fundamentals", edited by Ovid . Eshbach, copyright 1936 , gives, to find the cube root of 158252.632929 :
158 252. 632 929 | 54.09 5^3 = 125 _____ 300 X 5^2 = 7500 | 33 252 30 X 5 X 4 = 600 | 4^2 = 16 | _____| 8116 | 32 464 300 X 540^2=87480000 | 788 632 929 30 X 540 X 9= 145800 | 9^2 = 81 | _________ | 87625881 | 788 632 929
I know that it would have been better had Eshbach chosen a number which was not a perfect cube, but the method works fine for that case, anyway--- I used it sometimes to check my slide rule value, for greater precision....
Sorry about the clumsy presentation, but that's the best I know how to type this stuff-- the lines above which are blank except for an underline are supposed to appear directly under the 4^2 = 16 and 9^2 = 81 but I can't underline and type numbers at the same time. Is there a way?
Eshbach of course gives a written explanation for each step, but to save all of us time, I am assuming that everyone reading this is perfectly capable of working that out for himself. If you do want the entire text from Eshbach, lemme know and I'll either email it (as I said earlier) or I'll type it out and post it here some day soon-- I don't look at sci.math every day, just when I feel like it, so forgive the time lapse. Write me directly if you wish, at firstname.lastname@example.org.
BTW, does arithmonic always get so excited and upset? I never intended to help his ulcer along......
Grover Hughes retired engineer, Sandia National Laboratories