found your channel a few months ago and watched the Polar Planimeter video, and had to get one. It's so neat. Idk what I will ever use it for, but still fun. Thank you for sharing these devices
Staecker is hilarious -- I love the "progress in motion" soundtrack on the mechanical device video intros. Is the subject matter brilliant or stupid? Both? I can't decide, but the philosophical musings at the end always leave me scratching my chin. Those make this a favorite channel and the comments are also high quality.
Another great video, thanks Chris! Definitely got my "original" fix until the next video drops. If I was on Twitter, I would totally be your friend. #nerdsrule
TOPIC SUGGESTION: Can you demonstrate the "Method of Differences" used to find the next number in a sequence and how it relates to polynomials and Babbages Difference Engine. Also how polynomials can substitute for any function.
With Napier's bones (should bones be capitalized) you need more than 10. A digit might occur multiple times so you could need 50 or so. With the Nines that could be several hundred! And what is demon-flirting?
A standard set of 10 (four numbers per rod, and 4 of any digit per set) would be useful for anything less than 11,111. With a set of 30, you can work with ease numbers up to 1,111,111,111,111. As they are rather small, they are easy to carry, the rods being no more than 2" long. They would fit in a small box, to which you could also add the square root/cube root plate in the box.
Moxon suggests how many rods you'll need: "It will be convenient to have every Rod twice over, (though once over will be sufficient if your single rods of the 9 units be twice or thrice over,) whereas an ordinary set of single Bones must have every rod 4, 5, 6, 7, or more times over." The parenthetical is a point that I didn't mention- since Moxon's set included 1-digit rods (mine doesn't), it allows you some flexibility in how you build the number. So the number 3131, which with my set requires two copies of the "31" rod, could also be built as 3-13-1, which would require no duplicates.
I didn't know Moxon was a math nerd too. Until now, I knew him only as the old-timey woodworking tech manual writer nerd. I built the woodworking vice that has his name, and I mounted it on my bench. Maybe I'll use it to make some numbering nines. Nah. It's enough to think about him instead. I'll do all that in my head instead of with my hands.
I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree, Ganielle Rods may be more convenient for individual calculation, but they loose the flexibility of the Napier Bones. With the rods you need a whole separate set to do division vs the single extra rod you add to the bones to do both operations, on top of that you can add an rod to expand your possible operations to include square roots, and so forth for any given root. Personally I find that flexibility far more compelling than the slightly more convenient system of the rods for an individual operation.
@@ardinhelme687 : To use Napier's Bones, a set of ten is a good starting point; 30 is preferable. But Genaille-Lucas Rulers are just as good for the same single digit work. In both cases, a multi-digit multiplier or divisor requires additional intermediary steps, necessitating a place to record the interim calculations. To perform multi-digit multiplication in a single step, you can always use the Promptuary, also created by Napier. I find the Bones better, simply because of portability, and ease of the mechanics, especially as regards extracting square and cube roots.
Fun fact just between you and me- I discovered the Numbring Nines in the introduction to a translation of Napier while researching a video on the location arithmetic board. Coming soon!
@@ChrisStaecker Monkey Multiplier is good indeed, relating Searle's Chinese Room to look-up tables was neat. If I had to pick a personal favorite, it's probably the Instrument Traverse Nomogram. I suppose I am a sucker for humanist messages like the one at the end (even if I think it in reality has a more pragmatic answer ;) Thanks for answering!
@@ChrisStaecker Was at a party two days ago and the venue had a old timey totalisator on the wall so we got talking about old machines like that and I started showing the monkey multiplier to everyone. Amazing how it blows everyones minds.
@@ChrisStaecker ah right, duh. Pretty sure I had already resolved this mentally earlier in the video...but by the end I re-realized the issue without remembering its solution 🤦🏻♂️ thanks for getting back to me though! And keep up the great work, love these device review vids 😁
Ah, so wait a minute . . . If grammar is math for words and words are just noises come out your mouth, then . . . Only four? What about WH fronting? . . . Nice one, Chris.
0:55 You still didn't read the whole title, you barely even read a half! Man, book titles were really something else in those times. You read the title and knew exactly what's in the book and you didn't need an abstract!
You make really great videos with humor and insight. Here's hoping the algorithm sends more views your way -- you deserve them! Thanks.
Yes, even TH-cam is a number game!
Excellent demon flirtation sir.
Chris is such a flirt! 😂
Chris you deserve much much more views! I'm diligently doing my part and hope the algo send them your way!
found your channel a few months ago and watched the Polar Planimeter video, and had to get one. It's so neat. Idk what I will ever use it for, but still fun. Thank you for sharing these devices
“Talk them up on social media and see how many real friends you got.” - LMAO, I will be chuckling all night!
Fewer than before you talked them up! 😂
So entertaining yet so under rated.
I am losing most of a day to these guys videos... Can not stop watching
Staecker shewd a video made of nothing but numbring nines. Very foolish.
Love this kind of thing.
I've never so much enjoyed learning something I will never use!
If this channel didn't have a tagline before, I think it does now. I mean, this is entirely why I'm subscribed. 😅
I really love the lehmer prime sieves, that is my favorite video of yours. I agree with robert hooke on these things.
Staecker is hilarious -- I love the "progress in motion" soundtrack on the mechanical device video intros. Is the subject matter brilliant or stupid? Both? I can't decide, but the philosophical musings at the end always leave me scratching my chin. Those make this a favorite channel and the comments are also high quality.
Another great video, thanks Chris! Definitely got my "original" fix until the next video drops. If I was on Twitter, I would totally be your friend. #nerdsrule
TOPIC SUGGESTION: Can you demonstrate the "Method of Differences" used to find the next number in a sequence and how it relates to polynomials and Babbages Difference Engine. Also how polynomials can substitute for any function.
I had a long day and really needed this.
Yay! A new video! Love your stuff!
You know someone means business when they don't just have a PDF for you to download, they have the LaTeX source too.
In case you wanna put the stars back in.
Does home depot have your picture near the paint section with "do not give pant stirrers to this man"?
I actually bought these ones!
"That's right, these things are inspired by Napier's B O N E S!"
Great video as always!! Can't wait to see you blow up to 1 mil subs
Not having the zero is infuriating. Thought so when I learned Roman numerals at school and still think so today.
_Pythagoras his table_
This suggested a somewhat inconsequential question to me: is apostrophe s for ownership just a contraction of _his_ ?
Whoa..
With Napier's bones (should bones be capitalized) you need more than 10.
A digit might occur multiple times so you could need 50 or so.
With the Nines that could be several hundred!
And what is demon-flirting?
Demonstrating
A standard set of 10 (four numbers per rod, and 4 of any digit per set) would be useful for anything less than 11,111. With a set of 30, you can work with ease numbers up to 1,111,111,111,111. As they are rather small, they are easy to carry, the rods being no more than 2" long. They would fit in a small box, to which you could also add the square root/cube root plate in the box.
Moxon suggests how many rods you'll need: "It will be convenient to have every Rod twice over, (though once over will be sufficient if your single rods of the 9 units be twice or thrice over,) whereas an ordinary set of single Bones must have every rod 4, 5, 6, 7, or more times over."
The parenthetical is a point that I didn't mention- since Moxon's set included 1-digit rods (mine doesn't), it allows you some flexibility in how you build the number. So the number 3131, which with my set requires two copies of the "31" rod, could also be built as 3-13-1, which would require no duplicates.
I didn't know Moxon was a math nerd too. Until now, I knew him only as the old-timey woodworking tech manual writer nerd. I built the woodworking vice that has his name, and I mounted it on my bench. Maybe I'll use it to make some numbering nines. Nah. It's enough to think about him instead. I'll do all that in my head instead of with my hands.
I didn't know anybody had ever heard of Moxon!
@@ChrisStaecker Moxon is well known in woodworking circles.
I love it
"I don't decide what you all watch; TH-cam does"
ganielle rods are pretty much perfect for the thing , they also work better with smaller bases , you can make them with binary and take loads of them
I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree, Ganielle Rods may be more convenient for individual calculation, but they loose the flexibility of the Napier Bones. With the rods you need a whole separate set to do division vs the single extra rod you add to the bones to do both operations, on top of that you can add an rod to expand your possible operations to include square roots, and so forth for any given root. Personally I find that flexibility far more compelling than the slightly more convenient system of the rods for an individual operation.
@@ardinhelme687 : To use Napier's Bones, a set of ten is a good starting point; 30 is preferable. But Genaille-Lucas Rulers are just as good for the same single digit work. In both cases, a multi-digit multiplier or divisor requires additional intermediary steps, necessitating a place to record the interim calculations. To perform multi-digit multiplication in a single step, you can always use the Promptuary, also created by Napier. I find the Bones better, simply because of portability, and ease of the mechanics, especially as regards extracting square and cube roots.
napier also devised a method of multiplying numbers by moving counters on a grid according to rules (literally binary)
Local Arithmetic. Quite useful, actually.
Fun fact just between you and me- I discovered the Numbring Nines in the introduction to a translation of Napier while researching a video on the location arithmetic board. Coming soon!
@@argonwheatbelly637 yeah that's it, i forgot the name
Oh a treat
I'm curious, which DO you think is your best video (so far)?
Maybe Gerbert abacus? Equameter is good research though maybe not the best video. I do like the monkey multiplier too.
@@ChrisStaecker Monkey Multiplier is good indeed, relating Searle's Chinese Room to look-up tables was neat.
If I had to pick a personal favorite, it's probably the Instrument Traverse Nomogram. I suppose I am a sucker for humanist messages like the one at the end (even if I think it in reality has a more pragmatic answer ;)
Thanks for answering!
@@ChrisStaecker Was at a party two days ago and the venue had a old timey totalisator on the wall so we got talking about old machines like that and I started showing the monkey multiplier to everyone. Amazing how it blows everyones minds.
Current Status:
Napier's Bones = 974K
Genaille Rods = 90K
@@creamwobbly 😂 *SO FAR!*
dem bones
New subscriber
Wait am I missing something or can this not handle numbers with an odd number of digits...?
You can use one of the sticks starting with 0 as the left-most one. So to get 43211, use 04 32 11.
@@ChrisStaecker ah right, duh. Pretty sure I had already resolved this mentally earlier in the video...but by the end I re-realized the issue without remembering its solution 🤦🏻♂️ thanks for getting back to me though! And keep up the great work, love these device review vids 😁
Sitting here imagining if an accountant in 1690 would've kept their Numbering Nines rods in their own Darth Vader mug.
At what point are you going to talk about how Napier actually solved multiplication (using log tables)?
Not sure… I pretty much only focus on physical objects, and a log table doesn’t really fit, but maybe
I'm always down for some demon-flirting
Nth!
This is the best possible version of the worst possible comment. Congratulations.
Sittin' here wondering if the factorial was intentional
Ah, so wait a minute . . . If grammar is math for words and words are just noises come out your mouth, then . . . Only four? What about WH fronting?
. . . Nice one, Chris.
Btw, "shewed" is pronounced the same as "showed". C.f. "sew [a button]", "sow [the field]" Bienvenue.
OK but I'm 99% sure I correctly pronounced "demonflirting".
@@ChrisStaecker : Love that! ❤️
Demon flirting? LOL
Nil!
0:55 You still didn't read the whole title, you barely even read a half! Man, book titles were really something else in those times. You read the title and knew exactly what's in the book and you didn't need an abstract!