Archive for the 'Uncategorized' Category

“Out With The Old, In With The New!” (Hey, wait a sec.)

MajesticNokia Windows 8 phone

Old: Majestic 886                   New: Nokia 920

I just read a breathlessly exciting advertisement that came in my e-mail in-box today.  Gotta share it with you it’s so good. . .  It says, “Out with the old, in with the new!  The new year is the perfect time to upgrade your Muchmuch XYZZY with the old Candy Corn operating system to the new Muchmuch ZZYXY ™ with the new Popcorn OS.  Plus, with the beta user’s membership rebate plan you’re eligible for a $100 prepaid VISA(R) gift card if you trade in your Muchmuch XYZZY before June 14.  Also, just for our beta members, get a 10% lifetime discount off a new service plan for your new Muchmuch ZZYXY(tm) when you purchase the service plan with your ZZYXY(tm).  Its what Johnson Howard calls, ‘The Best Deal Of 2014!’”  (OK, I changed the names and more than a few other details, “to protect the innocent.”)

So much for the advertising.  In fact my XYZZY is less than two years old.  That’s not really very old, but on the other hand, the original two year service plan is coming to an end.  Conventional wisdom seems to be that I should take advantage of this deal.  Let’s say I trade in my Muchmuch XYZZY for the new ZZYXY model.  What becomes of the old XYZZY?  Who would buy it?  Maybe it can be refurbished and then sold in another, less advanced country.  But the market worldwide for these Muchmuch gadgets is pretty saturated.  Even if my old model is refurbished and put back into service for someone else, most likely that person will then recycle or discard his or her older Muchmuch gadget.  Somewhere along the line, a gadget is going to get discarded in response to my purchase.  Most likely the discarded gadget will go into a landfill or incinerator.  Either way the material stuff of the gadget does not really disappear from the planet.  It just gets dispersed somehow so that we don’t notice it so much anymore.

In the December 30, 2013 issue of Time Magazine there is a brief article (page 13) giving tips on how to “Make Less E-Waste.”  One suggested solution is to code all the parts in electronic gadgets to assist with diss-assembly and sorting so that regulators can track and control the movement of e-waste around the globe.  Another suggestion is to use the parts from old electronics to make new devices, like a, “3-D printer.”  Finally, they suggest replacing the battery to extend the life of older electronic devices.  Really?  Is that all there is to it?

What’s a Christian to think of this?  What’s a Christian Engineer to think of working for a company that makes things such as the “Muchmuch” gadget and promotes a new model every two years?  I’m sorry, I have no easy answers.  But clearly proceeding full steam ahead on maximizing the flow of revenue is not really what God wants for His creation.  There is beauty and joy to be appreciated from the new Muchmuch ZZYXY(tm), but on the other hand, there is beauty and joy to be had from preserving and caring for the (not really very) old Muchmuch XYZZY.  Maybe that’s why there are collectors of some of the really old electronic gadgets.  But honestly, we can’t possibly collect all our obsolete stuff.  I guess we should have the responsibility to purchase only what we can fruitfully put to use in glorifying the Lord, and no more.  That’s not easy to figure out.  I think God is interested in seeing how we respond to the challenge.

Comments are closed due to excessive spam. Find me on Facebook if you wish to comment. Log into Facebook, then use this link:



The Twilight of the “Big K”

The “Big K,” more properly known as the “International Prototype Kilogram” is
the shiny metal cylinder under the three glass domes.

How important is it that when you purchase an ounce of gold you get exactly one ounce of gold for your money? The “Big K” is essential to make sure that can happen.  Or how important is it that when you purchase a gallon of gasoline you get exactly one gallon of gasoline for your money? Or if you purchase a pound of bread that you get exactly one pound of bread for your money? There are “standards” to make sure fair measures happen.  These matters are so essential to the trust needed to live together in harmony that they are mentioned repeatedly in the Bible and also are mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, as well as in the equivalent documents of most countries in the world.

The congress shall have the power to. . . coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.” (From the U.S. Constitution, Article 1 Section 8.  Emphasis added.)

Leviticus 19:35-36 “Do not use dishonest standards when measuring length, weight or quantity. Use honest scales and honest weights, an honest ephah and an honest hin.”

Deuteronomy 25:13-15 “Do not have two differing weights in your bag—one heavy, one light. Do not have two differing measures in your house—one large, one small. You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.”

Proverbs 11:1 “The LORD abhors dishonest scales, but accurate weights are his delight.”

Proverbs 16:11 “Honest scales and balances are from the LORD; all the weights in the bag are of his making.”

Proverbs 20:10 “Differing weights and differing measures – the LORD detests them both.”

Proverbs 20:23 “The LORD detests differing weights, and dishonest scales do not please him.”

Ezekiel 45:10-12 “You are to use accurate scales, an accurate ephah and an accurate bath. The ephah and the bath are to be the same size, the bath containing a tenth of a homer and the ephah a tenth of a homer; the homer is to be the standard measure for both. The shekel is to consist of twenty gerahs. Twenty shekels plus twenty-five shekels plus fifteen shekels equal one mina.”

Amos 8:4-7 “Hear this, you who trample the needy and do away with the poor of the land, saying, ‘When will the New Moon be over that we may sell grain, and the Sabbath be ended that we may market wheat?’—skimping the measure, boosting the price and cheating with dishonest scales, buying the poor with silver and the needy for a pair of sandals, selling even the sweepings with the wheat. The LORD has sworn by the Pride of Jacob: ‘I will never forget anything they have done.’”

Micah 6:10-11 “Am I still to forget, O wicked house, your ill-gotten treasures and the short ephah, which is accursed? Shall I acquit a man with dishonest scales, with a bag of false weights?”

Everyone needs accurate weights and measures, engineers included.   The U.S. Congress has delegated the job of defining weights and measures to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), formerly called the National Bureau of standards (NBS).   In order to achieve standards that are internationally accepted, NIST relies on the work of the General Conference on Weights and Measures (GCWM) which is an international body that meets every six years to consider new developments in science as they might relate to achieving accurate weights and measures.  NIST also relies on the work of the International Committee on Weights and Measures, and on the work of the International Buearu of Weights and Measures.  NIST interprets the work of these groups and creates regulations so that U.S. law is consistent with the work of these international agencies.  The process of defining weights and measures depends similarly on these three international agencies in most countries in the world, so these three international agencies have a very important role.  In a very real way they can delight the Lord.

The three international agencies concern themselves mostly with just seven so-called “SI basic units.” (SI stands for “International Scientific” after the french abbreviation.) They are the second (time), the kilogram (mass), the kelvin (temperature), the meter (length), the ampere (electric current), the mole (number of particles in a substance), and the candela (luminous intensity).  It may seem amazing, but all other units we use in commerce and law are defined in terms of these seven SI basic units.  For example, an hour is exactly 3600 seconds.  An inch is exactly 0.0254 meters.  A foot is exactly 12 inches.  A mile is exactly 5280 feet.  And hence, a mile-per-hour is exactly defined in terms of seconds and meters, two SI basic units.  Similarly, ounces (mass), fluid ounces (volume of a liquid), volts (electricty), pounds-per-square-inch (pressure), carats (mass of a gem), and hundreds of other units are defined in terms of the seven SI basic units.  All these other units are said to be derived units, whereas the second, kilogram, kelvin, meter, ampere, mole and the candela are said to be SI basic units.  It should now be obvious that the definitions of the seven SI basic units are a very significant matter for worldwide trade, commerce, science, and life in general.  A change in any one of these definitions would have repercussions far and wide.

The GCWM is scheduled to meet in 2014, and it looks like the agenda will include the potential revision of the definitions of all seven of the SI basic units!  What’s with this?  I predict it will be just as disastrous as the Y2K debacle that happened on January 1, 2000.  In other words, you won’t notice it, but some scientists and engineers will have to spin their gears a bit to make sure you don’t notice it. In order to understand why the GCWM wants to make these changes, we need to review some history.

Back in the 1700′s it was common for each country to have prototype standard units against which to calibrate other measuring instruments.  Maybe you wanted to survey some land and needed to measure it in chains.  You would purchase a measuring chain, and if you wanted to know how good it was, you would compare it to your country’s prototype standard chain.  It does not take much imagination to see what kinds of problems such a system might have.  Maybe the prototype chain in country X is a slightly shorter than that in country Y for example.  Or maybe on a cold day the prototype chain is a little shorter than on a warm day.  Or maybe some wear builds up in the links of the prototype standard chain so that it stretches out to longer and longer lengths (slightly) over time.  Or maybe the metal of the chain is slightly elastic (all metals are) so that in use, the chain changes length based on how much tension you put on it.  OK–specify that it must be stretched to a specific tension and used at a specific temperature–but how will you standardize the measure of that tension and temperature!  It gets complicated really fast.

For all of the above reasons and more, scientists have long wanted to eliminate these prototype standard methods of defining units of measure.  In the early 1900′s scientists realized that standard units could be defined in terms of nature.  For example, the meter could be defined as one ten-millionth of the distance from the North Pole to the Equator along a meridian passing through the center of Paris, France.  (If you were french you would especially appreciate that definition!)  This would be great if everyone agrees that the earth is not changing in size.  And in 1793, everyone agreed.  Now each country could attempt to measure that distance and compare their prototype (formerly the standard) meter to the natural standard, and if everyone did a good job, and if the earth cooperated by not changing size from time-to-time, everyone would have virtually identical prototype meters.  Thus the prototype units lost their relevance as definitions of standard units, although they obviously retained their practical use.  (e.g. something to compare measuring instruments against)  By the way, scientists now allow that the earth might change size.  The meter is now re-defined in terms of the speed of light in a vacuum, which is (still) thought to be constant.

Over about a century of time, each of the seven basic SI units have been redefined in terms of natural constants, save for one lonely holdout.  Since 1889, and to this day (to be noticeably redundant), the kilogram is defined as “The mass of the International Prototype Kilogram,” more affectionately known as “Big K.”  “Big K” is kept in very carefully controlled environmental conditions in a vault in Sèvres on the outskirts of Paris.  But in 2014, it looks like the GCWM is going to retire this definition.  To accomplish this, they are proposing to define the numeric values of four well-known natural constants.  These are Planck’s constant, the elementary charge of an electron, Boltzman’s constant, and Avagadro’s constant.  Previously, to eliminate other prototype units from having definitional status, the GCWM has defined the ground state hyperfine splitting frequency of the caesium-133 atom as exactly 9 192 631 770 Hz (thus defining the second),  the speed of light as exactly 299 792 458 meters/second (thus defining the meter), and the luminous efficacy  of monochromatic radiation of frequency 540 x 1012 Hz is exactly 683 lumen-per-watt (thus defining the candela).

There are a few competing proceedures for exactly how the kilogram might be redefined.  The use of a watt-balance and in particular, settling on a exact numeric value for Plank’s constant is at the heart of the leading contender as of now.

If this proposal to define the numerical values of the four constants passes, and it looks like it will, then there will be seven such defined constants, from which the definitions of all seven SI base units will be derived.  The last prototype unit, the “Big K,” will loose its definitional status.  Pretty cool and it’s about time IMHO.


The Holy Bible (quotations are from the NIV)
Proposed redefinition of SI base units in Wikipedia
Redefining the kilogram at
World’s Roundest Object on You Tube

Comments are closed due to excessive spam. Find me on Facebook if you wish to comment. Log into Facebook, then use this link:
Image of “Big K” from

Maker Communities vs. Reformer Communities

There is a popular cultural phenomenon called the “Maker Community.”  Actually, there are a whole bunch of these communities.  “Makers” are people who are interested in crafting innovative and unusual stuff from scratch or more commonly, by making new arrangements of commonly available things and materials.  This phenomenon is being celebrated in magazines and TV shows.  A typical project for a maker involves something of the past being put to a new and futuristic, modern or otherwise just “cool” use.  For example, making artistic sculptures from old car parts or making a high-definition TV antenna from wire coat hangers.  Technologies such as welding and machining metal, woodworking, electronics, computers and 3-D printing and robotics are mixed and mastered at a hobbyist’s level of expertise so that each “maker” has a wide breadth of technical skill.  But it is not just the technology.  Being a “maker” means being part of a community.

Probably the main reason “making” did not become a cultural phenomenon in the past, say between World War II and the end of the twentieth century, has to do with the difficulty of communication.  In that era social media did not exist as we know it now.  Yes, the Interent and the World Wide Web were invented in the last decades of the twentieth century, but Super-8 movies, VHS camcorders and  Gopher were just not the same as You Tube and Facebook.  On Gopher you could publish the plans for your project, say a giant match made from an eight-foot-long four-by-four chunk of lumber.  But on You Tube you can share the emotional thrill of a “cool” project with thousands or maybe millions of people.  In the past it was too hard to get a community of like-minded people together face-to-face, but the maker community can use social media to establish communities that cross geographic hurtles.

As a side note, ham radio enthusiasts had achieved a sense of community spanning geographic hurtles, but the degree of technical knowledge required and narrowness of the topic kept the ham community out of the public eye most of the time.  A “maker community” is somewhat like a “ham community” only using more modern media and a much broader selection of technologies.

I’ve observed that the products of the maker community are not really the things they build.  After all, what can usefully be done with a “giant match?” It’s the cultures they build that count.  Building culture is really what engineering at Dordt College is about too.  We observe technical problems in society and try to solve them, not just for the thrill of building something, but also for the thrill of serving others as Jesus Christ’s hands in this world.

Consider the senior engineering projects done at Dordt College.  I’m sure any “maker” would understand why we do these projects.  Just like “makers,” we reform things.  Unlike the overall character of the maker movement, our goal at Dordt College is serving the Lord.  When true service to God happens, then true joy and peace are the outcomes. I’m thrilled to be part of Dordt’s “Reformer Community!” (And I love “making.”)

Comments are closed due to excessive spam. Find me on Facebook if you wish to comment. Log into Facebook, then use this link:
Image of welder from
Image of VHS Camcorder from an e-bay listing
Image of Super-8 camera from trade-bit





Robo-calls abuse Technology

Back in September my household received more than one political robo-call per day for a time.  Even though some were from organizations I support, they all blended into one huge annoyance.  Not a single one of those calls moved me (except to vent on my blog).  What do you feel when you get a robo-call?  The telephone should not be used this way.  These calls interrupted family life.

If anybody has any research data that shows recorded telephone calls are effective, I doubt the wisdom of the research on two grounds.  First, the ends do not justify the means.  This type of message does not merit the immediate interruption of family life that a telephone call causes.  There is no tornado nearby!  No friend is calling to arrange a birthday party.  Second, trying to speak to hearts and minds by making robo calls is plainly inane regardless of any data.  If you insist that robo calls work, then use your robo-caller for a higher purpose—for evangelism.  Maybe you could get Beth Moore, Tony Campolo, or some other notable person to record a convincing call to conversion and salvation.

Imagine followers of all faiths acting like this!

The robo-calling this fall has been inane indeed.


(Comments are closed due to spam, but you can find me on Facebook and put a comment on my wall if you have a Facebook account.)

Image from Animation Playhouse.

Julia Child’s 100th Birthday & Engineering

Today would have been Julia Child’s one-hundredth birthday.  (She lived from August 15, 1912 to August 13, 2004.)  She is the author of Mastering the Art of French Cooking and the host of the PBS TV show, The French Chef and several other TV shows about cooking. In honor of her birthday, PBS released a You Tube video titled “Julia Child Remixed.”

I’m old enough to recognize that Child’s singing voice on this video sounds much like Julia Child did on those 1970′s era TV shows she hosted.  How did they make Julia Child sing for this this sweet (pun intended!) video?  My guess is that they used a product like Antares Auto-Tune to alter the original sound track of some video clips from her TV shows.  Consider the variety of the technologies needed (other than cooking!) to televise and record those original TV shows, to convert them to a digital format, to artfully edit them into the remix, to make her talking voice into a singing voice, to add a synthesized backup band, and to wing this over the web to your eyes and ears.  If that intrigues you, then you might be interested in engineering!  All of these technical tasks fall squarely into the arena of electrical and computer engineering.

My doctoral research was in signal processing.  Thus it was a delight for me to discover this “remix” tribute, not only because I once enjoyed her TV shows when they were originally broadcast, and not only because I love food (Bring on the roasted potatoes!), but also because I enjoy the type of engineering work that made this retrospective “remix” possible, even if Auto-Tune is not my particular project.  I just thought I’d bring that to your attention!

(Comments are closed due to spam, but you can find me on Facebook and put a comment on my wall if you have a Facebook account.)

Image: from the linked You Tube Clip



Right to Privacy: Is It A Liability?

The fourth amendment to the US constitution (part of the Bill of Rights) states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

On July 20, 2012 during a midnight showing of the film, “The Dark Night Rises,” James Eagan Holmes, 24 years old, opened fire killing at least 12 people and injuring 58 others.  The news stories that followed this tragedy can hardly prevent each of us from pondering the state of gun laws in the USA.  Also, just as after some previous similar tragedies, we communally wonder if there were any signs that the shooter needed psychological help.  Did anyone observe any signs that we might have been able to use to avoid this needless violence?

I have a thought to offer on this topic.  Cell phones now have GPS units in them.  It is technologically possible to track every cell phone and thus the locations and interests of most people, to sift through all their messages, to link this information to credit card transactions by name, date, and address, to link this with web searches (Bing, Google, Yahoo, etc.) banking, academic, and medical records, and to link this with social networks (Facebook, Google+, etc).  A whole lot about each of us is stashed in the “cloud.”  It is just not organized.  We could rather easily set up a national data-mine to sift though this information.  It would then be possible to flag a Ph.D candidate with $26000 in grant support who is spending lots of money on guns and munitions and withdrawing from his studies.  Except our constitution prevents it.  Not just that, we are so accustomed to privacy, that our sense of ethics prevents it.  So I ask. . .

Is the right to privacy a liability in a technological society?  I’m starting to wonder which is worse, big brother or privacy?

Here are some opinions from others on this matter:

From IEEE Spectrum’s Inside Technology Blog, “Is Your Cell Phone Snitching On You?

Robert J. Sawyer promoting his novels: “Privacy: Who Needs It?

(Comments are closed due to spam, but you can find me on Facebook and put a comment on my wall if you have a Facebook account.)


Transistorized Transformation

This is the world’s first transistor radio model.  The retail price was $49.95 when introduced on October 18, 1954. Almost 100,000 were sold in the first year of production.  It is the model TR-1,  designed by Texas Instruments and Regency Electronics and manufactured by Regency Electronics.


That transistors “revolutionized the world” is a banal truth!  What might be some of the more interesting truths we can discover beyond that?

What now seems to be a banal truth was not so at the time.  In the 1950′s Transistors were “interesting,” but not clearly, “revolutionary.”  The transistor was invented in 1948.  It’s widespread use and influence did not develop until about 20 years later, in the late 1960′s and early 1970′s.  The transistors of the 1950′s were pretty crappy not only by today’s standards, but also in comparison to the devices they were supposed to replace, vacuum tubes.  Whereas the tubes of the 1950′s might have a 10% or maybe a 20% variance in a specification such as gain, transistors of that era might have a variation of over 200%.  Many engineers dismissed the new transistors as being impractical, just a lab curiosity.

An engineer at a company called Regency found a way to use the transistors of the era to reliably make AM transistor radios in an assembly-line process[1].  Here lies my first observation of a more interesting truth.  New technologies often enter the market at the bottom end, in low-cost applications, like an AM radio, rather than in high-end applications, like a computer.  The low-end applications serve as a demonstration of the technology.  The companies that dominate the market tend to ignore the new entrant since they do not have the facilities or expertise to economically compete in the low end of the market.  Low profit margins and little future growth potential make the new entrant seem very marginal and irrelevant.  (Look where AM radio is in popularity today!)  But that could be a mistake because as the new technology becomes more fundamentally practical it will experience exponential growth up the market chain.

In the 1950′s RCA was a big player in the business of main-frame computers.  Remember the RCA Bizmac line of computers?  With at least 5000 vacuum tubes in each computer and a 1950′s era price of at least 1.6 million dollars how could you forget?  But computers of that era were not mass produced[2].  The Bizmacs have been forgotten and the mass production of the Regency TR-1 is part of the reason you undoubtedly have never heard of a Bizmac before reading this.   (I’ve written more about RCA here.)  On the other hand,  have you heard of IBM computers?  They were transistorized and mass produced of course.  Thomas J. Watson realized that the mass production of the Regency TR-1 AM radio was important.   He also realized that he had to do more than start a project to design a transistorized computer.  He had to change attitudes and culture within IBM.  When engineers at IBM continued to advocate the use of vacuum tubes in computers, Watson simply gave them transistor radios [1].  That is apparently what what it took to get them to start designing computers with transistors.

You have to experience a new technology to really appreciate it.  New ideas are so foreign when they are new that they are difficult to understand in an emotional way.  This tends to hide the value of new ideas.   Experience is key to understanding new ideas.

At first new technologies are used to simply replace old technologies.  For example, transistors replaced vacuum tubes.  But later, the new technologies make other things obsolete.  Vacuum tubes require a device called a transformer to match the tubes to a loudspeaker.  Just like the transmission in a car converts the torque and speed of the engine to something appropriate for the differential and wheels, a transformer converts the voltage and current of a vacuum tube to match the needs of a loudspeaker.  The TR-1 radio pictured above had a matching transformer in it because the transistors were being used like tubes were.  Once tubes were replaced with transistors, the next largest component in the radio was the matching transformer.  At first engineers attempted to miniaturize it.  But they quickly discovered that transistors were not exactly like tubes, and that transistor circuits could be designed to directly drive the loudspeaker.  Viola!  No more matching transformers in radios.  Cost, weight, size, and battery life were all further improved.  All the companies that made matching transformers for audio applications lost a large segment of their market. This continuing type of innovation based on previous innovations is persistent.

Now we have personal computers, laptop computers, smartphones, Facebook, Youtube, and more.  In a sense all of these have been enabled by transistors.   At their heart, these new technologies represent the collective desires of our society.  They reflect our collective culture.  All of them represent a continuous developmental process of human desire.  Every one of us has little choice but to be influenced by these innovations.  (Do you still listen to your music on CD’s?  It is getting hard to do.  Sales of CD players are so low that many stores do not sell them any more.  Soon CD’s will go the way of Vinyl LP’s.)  But looking forward, we do have choices in developing the future.  We can innovate.

In summary,

1.)  New technologies often invade the marketplace at the bottom end first, seeming to offer little, but they demonstrate something fundamentally new in a practical way.  (There are exceptions.)

2.)  One needs to experience new technology to really appreciate it.

3.)  New technologies grow slowly at first, but eventually transform much more than could ever have been initially anticipated.

4.)  One can hardly choose to ignore technological innovations, but we can lead with innovation in order to influence our culture.  Technology is one of the means by which we as a society influence culture, that is, the means by which we influence what others care about.




Photo credit:

What Calculator is Best for Engineering?

Short answer:  Look here.

Details follow. . .

Five years ago a common question that I would get about this time of year was, “What computer is best for Engineering?” The question usually came from parents who intended to give a computer to their recent high-school graduate who was headed to Dordt for an engineering major. Amazingly, after five years my recommendations made back then are still up-to-date! Don’t believe me? There is a link at the end of this article so that you can see for yourself.

Now I’ll try to give a timeless answer to the similar question, “What calculator is best for Engineering?”

Really fancy “graphing” calculators are available.   I have one, an HP 28S.  The TI-83 and TI-89 are more popular and excellent calculators too.  But the interesting thing is that you will not be allowed to use those calculators on some important tests.  “What tests?” you might ask.  Just the Fundamentals of Engineering and the Principles and Practice of Engineering tests, which you might need to get your professional license!  Oh. . .  also the Graduate Record Exam (GRE) which you might need to get into graduate school.

Dordt College has no control over the policies regarding calculators on the tests just mentioned, but we want our graduates to do well on these tests.  These policies have been getting stricter as time goes by.  It can be quite a distraction to have to deal with an unfamiliar non-graphing calculator while working on one of these tests if all you used in college was a graphing calculator.  Therefore the Dordt College Engineering Department has adopted a new policy regarding calculators.  Beginning in the fall of 2012 only calculators permitted at the NCEES engineering exams will be permitted at tests in the EGR100 (freshman) and EGR200 (sophomore) level engineering courses at Dordt College.  Beginning in the fall of EGR 2013 the policy will apply to all engineering tests at Dordt College.

You might wonder if requiring these inexpensive non-graphing calculators would impair the educational experience.  To the contrary.  They will enhance the educational experience for at least two reasons.  First, calculators that can do many fancy things also have a learning curve associated with using the advanced features to advantage.  We occasionally grade papers where it is obvious that an advanced feature (for example symbolic algebra) was used by a student who really did not understand the feature or the method.  Then the outcome of the calculation is unrecognized bogosity, which is of course not good for education.  Second, when graphs or other advanced features are really needed, computers are a better way to do it.  Learning to do these tasks on a computer is much better than doing them on a calculator with a small low-resolution screen and a unique style of programming that translates to nothing else.  Learning about computer programs like Labview, Mathcad, Matlab, and Sage is much more worthwhile than learning how to use a graphing calculator.

The non-graphing calculators that the department will be requiring for tests (you can use whatever you want for homework) are not stripped-down four-function items.  These calculators support all kinds of trig, exponential, logarithmic, power and root, statistical, polar, and many other functions.  (Some also support complex number calculations.)  They are easier to use well and rapidly than a graphing calculator. (Unless you never use the graphing features!)  And, they cost much less.  When the faculty discussed these matters at a department meeting prior to adopting this new policy, we unanimously agreed that these calculators are actually more appropriate to a quality education than the graphing calculators that are banned from the professional and graduate exams.  There are good reasons why the national organizations ban graphing calculators.

My favorite?  For what it is worth, I’m hooked on HP calculators because I used to work there.  The retro-styled HP 35s is the way to go IMHO.  You can get a used one in perfect condition if you look around on the Web.  The engineers who use them one time on an NCEES test sometimes sell them cheap.  (Ahh…, but you won’t get mine!)  Don’t take my word for it though.  Look around and you will find some so-so reports on that HP model.  It is just not a perfect imitation of some earlier HP calculators.  And it is not really worth the money either in comparison to the other calculators on the NCEES list, unless of course you prefer HP for some reason!

Here is another way to look at it.  All the calculators in this list are very similar.  The main features that distinguish one of these calculators from another are a multi-line display (HP has it!) and complex number support (HP has that too!).  Those are features you can use in your work at Dordt and on the tests.  At these low prices, why not look for both of those features in one calculator?  That’s probably about one third of the calculators on the NCEES list.

If you are already familiar with a TI calculator, you might prefer a TI-36X Pro model.   Check that.

There you go!  Paying attention to what you need to do, rather than all the things you could do, is more important than the hardware.  Oh yeh. . .  I said that in so many words more than five years ago here!

Christian Progress

My last post was titled, American Progress.  I posted it for your consideration when I stumbled upon Gast’s painting and could not help but remember the Apple “silhouette” series of advertisements.  What might Christian Progress be?  What might that mean for an engineer?  It is the freedom to make progress in the Christian sense of the word here at Dordt that gets me excited as I teach!

In answer to these questions I offer first a reference to a favorite book of mine, The Christian Mind, by Harry Blamires.  You can read an outline of the book online.  Or better yet, get the book (purchase or from a library) and read it.  (It is unrelated to Blamires’ book, but there is also a famous sermon from 1853 by John Angell James titled, Christian Progress.)

We live in a world of conflict between good and bad.  We depend completely on Christ’s mercy to provide salvation from the bad and knowledge of the good.  That even includes provision of a sense of living a meaningful life every day.  It motivates us to do work in which we strive to glorify God.  Figuratively, Christians desire to work to create vessels that take people through time toward their final home with God.  (Blameries, p73).  Our work, and our entire being, has a religious orientation.  Contrast that to “American Progress,”  as you might find taught in a state university.  There you find a self-sufficient world.  All that matters or ever will matter is what we experience, what we humans can sense.   American progress elevates people to the roles of gods and final judges over everything that is.  Ironically, then there is no final authority of even purpose for life.

All things were created by God and and are under Christ’s rule.  (Hebrews 2:8, Psalm 8:6, 1 Corinthians 15:27)  Although everything we do and design is bound for obsolescence and death, what we do for the Lord will matter.  “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”  (1 Corinthians 14:54)  Think of the salvation and purpose we find in Christ!  That’s Christian progress.

The photo of the crosses is from The image of the dancer is a frame captured from an Apple ipod video at


American Progress

The painting above, by John Gast, dates from 1872. Here Colombia, a personification of the United States, leads civilization westward with American settlers.  She holds a school book and she is stringing telegraph wire as she sweeps west.  The different stages of the pioneers are highlighted and, especially, the changing forms of transportation. Native Americans and animals flee in terror.  Note that Colombia is bringing light, as witnessed on the eastern side of the painting as she travels towards the darkened westward side.

(The text is adapted from  The photo of the painting is from  The image of the dancer is a frame captured from an Apple ipod video at