The same remark applies to William Leybourn who, after speaking of Seth
Partridge’s slide rule, returns to forms of Gunter’s scale, saying:[14]
There is yet another way of disposing of this Line of Proportion, by
having one Line of the full length of the Ruler, and another Line of the
same Radius broken in two parts between 3 and 4; so that in working your
Compasses never go off of the Line: This is one of the best contrivances,
but here Compasses must be used. These are all the Contrivances that I
have hitherto seen of these Lines: That which I here speak of, and will
shew how to use, is only two Lines of one and the same Radius, being set
upon a plain Ruler of any length (the larger the better) having the
beginning of one Line, at the end of the other, the divisions of each
Line being set so close together, that if you find any number upon one of
the Lines, you may easily see what number stands against it on the other
Line. This is all the Variation. . . .
Example 1. If a Board be 1 Foot 64 parts broad, how much in length of
that Board will make a Foot Square? Look upon one of your Lines (it
matters not which) for 1 Foot 64 parts, and right against it on the other
Line you shall find 61; and so many parts of a Foot will make a Foot
square of that Board.
This contrivance solves the equation 1.64x=1, yielding centesimal parts of
a foot.
James Atkinson[15] speaks of “Gunter’s scale” as “usually of Boxwood . . .
commonly 2 ft. long, 1½ inch broad” and “of two kinds: long Gunter or
single Gunter, and the sliding Gunter. It appears that during the
seventeenth century (and long after) the Gunter’s scale was a rival of the
slide rule.