Oh hell, just bought another calculator

[CatalinaWOW]

Congratulations on your new toy.  An interesting idea that I had never come across before.  I was looking all over your picture for the abacus, based on your claim of an extremely long production run.

[tggzzz]

The scale on the Fuller calculator is 500inches, i.e. i.e. 41ft 8inches or 12.7m. So the Fuller is about 5* bigger

Following that argument, I propose to measure the size of other computers by adding the length of all the wiring in an analog computer, or measuring the length of the torsion delay line wire in a Diehl or Monroe desktop calculator, or of all the PCB traces in a desktop PC. 

I think we should stick with outside dimensions, which are impressive enough for the Fuller calculator. Not sure whether the classroom demonstration slide rule counts here, since its size was not driven by the technical requirements of implementing the computing technology.

In the context you snipped, it is clear I was comparing the length of one slide rule with another.

Apart from that, comparing two very different technologies with each other is always fraught and arguable.

There is no doubt that the defining dimension of the Fuller calculator is 500 inches. What the defining dimension of a modern computer is, is a matter of some debate

[ebastler]

In the context you snipped, it is clear I was comparing the length of one slide rule with another.

Apart from that, comparing two very different technologies with each other is always fraught and arguable.

There is no doubt that the defining dimension of the Fuller calculator is 500 inches. What the defining dimension of a modern computer is, is a matter of some debate

Well, in the opening post you characterized the Fuller as "probably the biggest calculator, short of an old mainframe computer, that has ever existed or will ever exist", so you were comparing it to calculators based on other technologies. Hence my proposal how those should be measured for a fair competition.

Or the more serious suggestion to just look at the outside dimensions when comparing the size of calculators built with different technologies.

[nfmax]

And there was me, thinking you might have bought a Henge…

[tggzzz]

Congratulations on your new toy.  An interesting idea that I had never come across before.  I was looking all over your picture for the abacus, based on your claim of an extremely long production run.

Glad you enjoyed the misdirection

ISTR hearing of competitions between someome with an abacus and someone with an electronic calculator. In some cases the abacus won decisively.

[tggzzz]

And there was me, thinking you might have bought a Henge…

Can't. My house is full, and my garden wouldn't be big enough for anything more than a model. Must admit I'm wondering about an electronic (c.f. mechanical) analogue computer, though. It would make a nice conversation piece in the lounge.

But on the way back from picking the calculator up from the auction house, I did walk inside a tomb (again)[1], see "the tallest prehistoric human-made mound in Europe" (not supposed to climb it, boo hiss), and visit the largest stone circle in the world.

The latter is much more peasant than Stonehenge; while I have greatly enjoyed eating a picnic on the stones, nowadays it is an unpleasant place. And Stanton Drew circle is much nicer now.

[1] not Hetty Pegler's Tump; you have to crawl into that.

[tggzzz]

In the context you snipped, it is clear I was comparing the length of one slide rule with another.

Apart from that, comparing two very different technologies with each other is always fraught and arguable.

There is no doubt that the defining dimension of the Fuller calculator is 500 inches. What the defining dimension of a modern computer is, is a matter of some debate

Well, in the opening post you characterized the Fuller as "probably the biggest calculator, short of an old mainframe computer, that has ever existed or will ever exist", so you were comparing it to calculators based on other technologies. Hence my proposal how those should be measured for a fair competition.

Or the more serious suggestion to just look at the outside dimensions when comparing the size of calculators built with different technologies.

Indeed, but that would be a cardinal sin: boring

I would consider the memory inside a Monroe Epic 3000 calculator as being large, possibly even larger than the Fuller calculator. http://www.vintagecalculators.com/html/calculator_memory_technologies.html

There are other cylindrical slide rules, e.g. http://tinas-sliderules.me.uk/Slide%20Rules/CylindricalSlideRules.html