# essential equations



## Sschell (Dec 6, 2006)

Did anyone use the "the other board" essential equations? I know they are available for multiple diciplines.

It sounded like a good idea to me, so I bought the book (mechanical), and entered them into the calc... but now that I have, I am questioning the utility of that.

Did any one actually use them on the test?


----------



## tmckeon_PE (Dec 6, 2006)

Used it a lot and added ones I needed during the exam. Was quicker (when I knew how to add the equations) than rewrite the equations by hand. Copied portions of the book for reference reasons and have them in PDF format for anyone that has the book.


----------



## riedlipa (Dec 6, 2006)

Sshelhase:

I used the Mechanical Essential equations in my calculator. I studied out of the Merm and quick formulas book also.

I actually used alot of the equations on the PE. I found that when I was studying, I was unable to find things very quickly, and the piece of Sh*t calculator that NCEES allows for RPN folks doesn't allow you to seach quickly, let alone see a long equation.

So I put numbers and a short description on each line BEFORE the equation in the list.

I also put the number of that same equation next to it's namesake in my notes. When I was doing the test, I could see if I laready had a programmed equation, and also it's number. Finding the equation was as simple as counting the clicks.

I am lousy at finding info under pressure. I needed very badly to formulate a system to find the correct equation quickly. I found the above sceneario worked well for me.

I don't know yet if I passed the PE or not, but I didn't have a system like this when I took the EIT, and I found the pre-programmed equations were near useless to me, becasue I couldn't find them quickly.

Am I anal, or What? :ass:

True Story :true:


----------



## tmckeon_PE (Dec 6, 2006)

Were you programming or entering equations?

Seems like there wasn't an option for puting numbers or what-not in front of the equation unless you were using the programming function. Programming the 33s has a lot of limitations in that the number of variables is very limited and the time it takes to program is a lot longer.

I liked it that it can program, but would have liked that a whole lot more when I was in college.

I wan't my old HP 32s back. HP stopped making those (for some unreasonable thing). It was capable of RPN and had keys big enough to use properly and, also, had some memory available for some programs with a big enough screen to be able to use (whew, long sentence).

Somebody call HP and get them to bring back the 32s; please.


----------



## tmckeon_PE (Dec 6, 2006)

I have two of the 33s's and am alright with it, but it still isn't nearly as good as the 32s (circa 1989 or 1990 or so).


----------



## tmckeon_PE (Dec 6, 2006)

Shucks, meant to say the 28s model. Got confused. Beer does that sometimes somtimes sometmes somtms smts sms sts sms ss s.


----------



## Road Guy (Dec 7, 2006)

I only programmed a few mannings type equations in the HP 33

&amp; the one for finding ideal circular &amp; trapezoidal channels


----------



## Guest (Dec 7, 2006)

I used HP 33S, but didn't bother to program any equations into the calculator. A number of people told me this would really be a good idea, but in my mind this approach suffers from the following:

1. HP-33S does have it's own conventions/limitations in programming equations. The time/effort to go through and figure this out seemed to offset time I could be using to prepare for exam;

2. I like to write my problems out. IMHO, if you come out with an incorrect answer, how are you going to fix it if all you have is ... a number on a calculator. Moreover, you can't see if your units "match" if you are plugging #'s in a calc.

3. When I first started using HP calcs, the solver function would start to have problems converging to an answer based on the complexity of the equation. "oldtimer" It would have even more problems if there were multiple solutions. I know solver functions have come a long way, but I can't help but to be suspicious. ld timer:

4. I opted for Civil/WR Depth for the October 2006 exam. I felt like preprogramming my calculator would not have added any benefit to my performance. In fact, in some cases, I think I may have been hopelessly stuck with units conversions in a few places. Again, I am a write-it-out look at it on paper kinda guy. 

The bottom line, figurtively and literally, it depends on how comfortable you feel with solver function and whether you want to invest the time in programming your calc. '.02'

Best of luck in your preparation.

JR


----------



## Sschell (Dec 7, 2006)

Hey riedlipa, good suggestions, My main 2 problems are 1 remembering what eqns are in the thing and finding them. a line identifying each one between eqns is a great idea!


----------



## Kephart P.E. (Feb 19, 2009)

sschellhase said:


> Hey riedlipa, good suggestions, My main 2 problems are 1 remembering what eqns are in the thing and finding them. a line identifying each one between eqns is a great idea!



I was looking at the Mechanical Book as well for the "Essential Equns"

Anyone have an opinion on if it is worth $40?


----------



## VA_NowPE (Feb 19, 2009)

I can't speak for the Mech. but I used the essential equations for the Civil for the HP 33s - I actually used an HP 35s with the equations - I can honestly say it helped me answer 1 or 2 (maybe 3) questions much quicker then I would have otherwise (having the calcs programmed in). But, that was only 1 to 3 questions. Also, I should add, I only programmed appox. 5 equations into my calculator. Overall, I would recommend getting the book as it will also help you familarize yourself with your calculator. BUT, don't sacrifice actual problem solving time to plug in equations - spending 10 - 15 hours a week solving problems is what really helped me! Best wishes to ya'all.


----------

