On Thu, 2025-09-04 at 14:55 -0400, Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote:
> I think the point here is that the Type 512A and the Type 518 are not
> commercial products and appear to have been made specifically for the
> ENIAC.  Looking for confirmation of that hypothesis.  The 13 and 19
> dimensions are not the same as the 12A and 18 respectively.
> Bill

Sure, but both organizations might have information about the machines
that interest you, even if they don't have instances of them.

> 
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 2:46 PM Van Snyder via cctalk
> <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2025-09-04 at 11:35 +0100, David Wade via cctalk wrote:
> > > > I'm looking for some information on a couple of the early
> > > > IBM unit record devices, in particular the Type 512A and
> > > > the Type 518.  Ideally, I'd like to get the mechanical
> > > > dimensions in enough detail to create a CAD model.
> > > 
> > > As I assume you are aware, but perhaps others on here are not,
> > > that
> > > these pre-date computing and must come from the era when data
> > > processing
> > > involved only punched cards and I feel well before the term "Unit
> > > Record" was coined. Sadly, this seems to be a forgotten era and
> > > there
> > > is
> > > very little information about it on the web.
> > 
> > The Computer History Museum in Mountain View, CA has a 519. They
> > might
> > have other models as well, or information about them. Contact Dag
> > Spicer <[email protected]>.
> > 
> > Haus zur Geschichte der IBM Datenvararbeitung (House of the History
> > of
> > IBM Data Processing) had a large collection in what had been a
> > punch-
> > card factory in Sindelfingen, a suburb of Stuttgart. They had a
> > 650,
> > 1401, and 360\25 in working order. IBM sold the building and moved
> > the
> > collection to the IBM technology center across the autobahn in
> > Böblingen. I don't know how much of the collection they retained.
> > Contact Hans Spengler <[email protected]>, Werner Seebode
> > <[email protected]>, or Heinz Oberle <[email protected]>.
> > 

Reply via email to