Re: punching paper tape

[Guy Fedorkow via cctalk]

  Al K has read hundreds of these Whirlwind tapes using a standard
8-track optical reader, so I think we can confirm that it is punched
with the common geometry, except one track narrower, with four bits on
one side of the sprocket holes, and three bits on the other.
  The tapes are for pedagogical purpose, so if I can punch on inch-wide
tape and perhaps trim the width later, that works just fine.
Thanks all!
 /guy




Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 16:01:38 -0700 From: Al Kossow
 To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: Re: punching
paper tape Message-ID:
 Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 3/26/21 2:58 PM, Steve
Malikoff via cctalk wrote:

> OK thanks for that. I just had a browse and read that "Whirlwind used
> the same paper tape format that was popular with Teletype machines" so
> I gather it's nothing special after all.

the best picture i have at hand of what a ww tape looks like is on the
right of
http://bitsavers.org/bits/MIT/whirlwind/X4222.2008_Whirlwind_ptp/pictures/start_of_sort_20180724/8.JPG
you can see it is narrower by one punch than a normal 8-channel tape

RE: punching paper tape

[Paul Birkel via cctalk]

-Original Message-
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Christian
Corti via cctalk
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 3:52 AM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: punching paper tape

On Fri, 26 Mar 2021, Paul Koning wrote:
> Some machines used 7-track paper tape that is narrower than 8 track 
> tape.  I thought Whirlwind was one of those.

Yes, the LGP-30 uses 7-tack paper tape as well. Normal 8 track paper tape 
is 25.4mm, 7 track tape 22.2mm. The latter is absolutely unobtanium... (I 
think we have one or two spools).

Christian

-
FYI, from a recent GK thread:

I contacted https://www.adorablesupply.com to get clarification about their
pin feed paper since sometimes people call 9.5" paper 8.5" if it has tear
off 
edges.  Turns out the guy who responded knew what a Teletype machine 
was. I mentioned Teletype restoration as a generic reference and his 
response was "I go back a long way with the Teletype 28's"

They also can supply tape in both 11/16" and 1".  I suspect they could 
also do 7/8".  Wonder if they could do gummed back WU style tape?

-

Re: punching paper tape

[Christian Corti via cctalk]

On Fri, 26 Mar 2021, Paul Koning wrote:
Some machines used 7-track paper tape that is narrower than 8 track 
tape.  I thought Whirlwind was one of those.


Yes, the LGP-30 uses 7-tack paper tape as well. Normal 8 track paper tape 
is 25.4mm, 7 track tape 22.2mm. The latter is absolutely unobtanium... (I 
think we have one or two spools).


Christian

Re: punching paper tape

[Steve Malikoff via cctalk]

Al said
> the best picture i have at hand of what a ww tape looks like is on the right 
> of
> http://bitsavers.org/bits/MIT/whirlwind/X4222.2008_Whirlwind_ptp/pictures/start_of_sort_20180724/8.JPG
>
> you can see it is narrower by one punch than a normal 8-channel tape


OK that really seems to be 7/8" wide 7-level, even though the 1965 ECMA doc 
says 7-level is 1" ...??

So I just added a --whirlwind flag to ptap2dxf (and pushed it up) to make 
physical tape that looks
like that photo. It doesn't yet do any protocol mapping or whatnot as I don't 
quite get the gist of
the Whirlwind_Paper_Tape_Format.pdf

C:\path\to>ptap2dxf --whirlwind --text="012ABC" --output=WW.DXF
++
| OO.|
| OO.   O|
| OO.  O |
|O  .   O|
|O  .  O |
|O  .  OO|
++
Joiner : data byte   absolute position 0006

C:\path\to>head -5 WW.DXF
  0
SECTION
  2
HEADER
  9
. . .

(And cut that tape DXF on a CNC stencil machine. I don't have my stencil cutter 
set up at this
moment so I just printed it on paper and measured to confirm 7/8" wide, 7 data 
holes)

But I suppose it's all a moot point if they don't have the original Whirlwind 
paper tape reader
device to run it through :(

Steve

Re: punching paper tape

[Eric Moore via cctalk]

The document refers to 8 bit (7+P+F) and 7 bit (6+P+F) using the same
width, 25.4mm, for ECMA-10.

>From the docs that have been linked, whirlwind tape was 7 bit, but not
EIA-RS-227 or ECMA-10 compliant, but easily re-created by trimming a data
bits width from normal 8 level tape. (LSB should be trimmed, not MSB, I
think)

I have a teletype BRPE which supported a 7 level tape format, but I do not
know if it was ECMA-10 or whirlwind style, but it may be buried in the docs
available online.

-Eric

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 8:10 PM Ron Pool via cctalk 
wrote:

> On 3/26/21, 8:41 PM, "cctalk on behalf of Paul Koning via cctalk" <
> cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org on behalf of cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> > I can't find right now the drawings that show all the 5..8 channel tape
> layouts and dimensions, but I did see a
> > number of references that speak of 7/8th inch tape for 7 channel
> layout.  (Also 11/16 for the 5-channel case)
>
> ECMA-10 defines some of the common punched tape layouts and includes
> dimensions and other requirements.
> I'm not sure if this is the document that Paul is referring to.
>
> https://www.polyomino.org.uk/computer/ECMA-10/
>
>
>
>

Re: punching paper tape

[Ron Pool via cctalk]

On 3/26/21, 8:41 PM, "cctalk on behalf of Paul Koning via cctalk" 
 wrote:
> I can't find right now the drawings that show all the 5..8 channel tape 
> layouts and dimensions, but I did see a
> number of references that speak of 7/8th inch tape for 7 channel layout.  
> (Also 11/16 for the 5-channel case)

ECMA-10 defines some of the common punched tape layouts and includes dimensions 
and other requirements.
I'm not sure if this is the document that Paul is referring to.

https://www.polyomino.org.uk/computer/ECMA-10/

Re: punching paper tape

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Mar 26, 2021, at 7:01 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> On 3/26/21 2:58 PM, Steve Malikoff via cctalk wrote:
> 
>> OK thanks for that. I just had a browse and read that "Whirlwind used the 
>> same paper tape format that was popular with Teletype machines" so
>> I gather it's nothing special after all.
> 
> the best picture i have at hand of what a ww tape looks like is on the right 
> of
> http://bitsavers.org/bits/MIT/whirlwind/X4222.2008_Whirlwind_ptp/pictures/start_of_sort_20180724/8.JPG
> 
> you can see it is narrower by one punch than a normal 8-channel tape

I can't find right now the drawings that show all the 5..8 channel tape layouts 
and dimensions, but I did see a number of references that speak of 7/8th inch 
tape for 7 channel layout.  (Also 11/16 for the 5-channel case)

paul

Re: punching paper tape

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

On 3/26/21 2:58 PM, Steve Malikoff via cctalk wrote:


OK thanks for that. I just had a browse and read that "Whirlwind used the same paper 
tape format that was popular with Teletype machines" so
I gather it's nothing special after all.



the best picture i have at hand of what a ww tape looks like is on the right of
http://bitsavers.org/bits/MIT/whirlwind/X4222.2008_Whirlwind_ptp/pictures/start_of_sort_20180724/8.JPG

you can see it is narrower by one punch than a normal 8-channel tape

Re: punching paper tape

[Steve Malikoff via cctalk]

Dwight said
> I think it really depends on what reader he is putting it on. If it is a 
> standard newer 8 bit reader, the ASR33 punched tape is fine.
> Dwight

OK thanks for that. I just had a browse and read that "Whirlwind used the same 
paper tape format that was popular with Teletype machines" so
I gather it's nothing special after all.

Steve.

Re: punching paper tape

[dwight via cctalk]

I think it really depends on what reader he is putting it on. If it is a 
standard newer 8 bit reader, the ASR33 punched tape is fine.
Dwight



From: cctalk  on behalf of Steve Malikoff via 
cctalk 
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 2:15 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts 
Subject: Re: punching paper tape

Guy said
>   You are correct, the Whirlwind tape was only seven tracks wide, with
> the same pitch as what became eight-track tape.
> http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/mit/whirlwind/Whirlwind_Paper_Tape_Format.pdf
>
>   I'll admit that I was expecting it to be hard to find someone with an
> eight-track punch and blank tape, without even trying for seven track...
> There are a few of the original Flexowriters out there somewhere, but
> I'm certainly not going to try using one.  The tape is for "pedagogical"
> purposes, so indeed seven would be better than eight, but eight will do
> fine.
>   But if you can suggest a way to punch a seven track paper tape, I'm
> glad to give it a try!


Do you have some more detailed specs for Whirlwind tape?
I can add it to ptap2dxf   https://github.com/1944GPW/ptap2dxf

It can do 8-level, 7-level, 5-level, Creed, USN Wheatstone, Morse, Teletype 
chadless and
variations of those (mirrored, inverse, letters, sprocket hole any position 
etc) so another
obscure format would be fun to add. Only a few of these have been physically 
tested mind
you, as I don't have anything to read the odd ones with.

Steve.

Re: punching paper tape

[Steve Malikoff via cctalk]

Guy said
>   You are correct, the Whirlwind tape was only seven tracks wide, with
> the same pitch as what became eight-track tape.
> http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/mit/whirlwind/Whirlwind_Paper_Tape_Format.pdf
>
>   I'll admit that I was expecting it to be hard to find someone with an
> eight-track punch and blank tape, without even trying for seven track...
> There are a few of the original Flexowriters out there somewhere, but
> I'm certainly not going to try using one.  The tape is for "pedagogical"
> purposes, so indeed seven would be better than eight, but eight will do
> fine.
>   But if you can suggest a way to punch a seven track paper tape, I'm
> glad to give it a try!


Do you have some more detailed specs for Whirlwind tape?
I can add it to ptap2dxf   https://github.com/1944GPW/ptap2dxf

It can do 8-level, 7-level, 5-level, Creed, USN Wheatstone, Morse, Teletype 
chadless and
variations of those (mirrored, inverse, letters, sprocket hole any position 
etc) so another
obscure format would be fun to add. Only a few of these have been physically 
tested mind
you, as I don't have anything to read the odd ones with.

Steve.

Re: punching paper tape

[Eric Moore via cctalk]

For short tapes, running it through a rotary paper cutter rig would let you
cut it down to the right width. Problem is you could not use anything but a
custom built or modified reader. Leaving the MSB 0 would get you accurate 7
bit bytes/words with 8 bit byte alignment for simplified reading and
storing of files on modern systems, and allow usage of common punches and
readers.

I would suggest punching a number of 8 level tapes, then taking a few and
cutting them down so you have readable tapes, and then historically
accurate tapes for demonstration/display purposes.

-Eric



On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 3:43 PM Guy Fedorkow  wrote:

> Paul,
>   You are correct, the Whirlwind tape was only seven tracks wide, with
> the same pitch as what became eight-track tape.
> http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/mit/whirlwind/Whirlwind_Paper_Tape_Format.pdf
>
>   I'll admit that I was expecting it to be hard to find someone with an
> eight-track punch and blank tape, without even trying for seven track...
> There are a few of the original Flexowriters out there somewhere, but
> I'm certainly not going to try using one.  The tape is for "pedagogical"
> purposes, so indeed seven would be better than eight, but eight will do
> fine.
>   But if you can suggest a way to punch a seven track paper tape, I'm
> glad to give it a try!
>
>   And if we do end up with eight track tape, I'll be sure to add an
> attaboy for anyone else who notices!
>   Thanks!
> /guy
>
>
> On 3/26/2021 4:02 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
> >
> >> On Mar 26, 2021, at 3:31 PM, Guy Fedorkow via cctalk <
> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> wow, what format?
> >>   The codes I'm punching should line up with a long-dead machine,
> >> Whirlwind from MIT, so I think you'd consider them to be 7-track binary,
> >> i.e., same size as an 8-track teletype tape with one track blank, but no
> >> recognizable coding like ASCII.
> > Some machines used 7-track paper tape that is narrower than 8 track
> tape.  I thought Whirlwind was one of those.
> >
> >   paul
> >
> >
>
>

Re: punching paper tape

[Guy Fedorkow via cctalk]

Paul,
  You are correct, the Whirlwind tape was only seven tracks wide, with
the same pitch as what became eight-track tape.
http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/mit/whirlwind/Whirlwind_Paper_Tape_Format.pdf

  I'll admit that I was expecting it to be hard to find someone with an
eight-track punch and blank tape, without even trying for seven track...
There are a few of the original Flexowriters out there somewhere, but
I'm certainly not going to try using one.  The tape is for "pedagogical"
purposes, so indeed seven would be better than eight, but eight will do
fine.
  But if you can suggest a way to punch a seven track paper tape, I'm
glad to give it a try!

  And if we do end up with eight track tape, I'll be sure to add an
attaboy for anyone else who notices!
  Thanks!
/guy


On 3/26/2021 4:02 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
>
>> On Mar 26, 2021, at 3:31 PM, Guy Fedorkow via cctalk  
>> wrote:
>>
>> wow, what format?
>>   The codes I'm punching should line up with a long-dead machine,
>> Whirlwind from MIT, so I think you'd consider them to be 7-track binary,
>> i.e., same size as an 8-track teletype tape with one track blank, but no
>> recognizable coding like ASCII.
> Some machines used 7-track paper tape that is narrower than 8 track tape.  I 
> thought Whirlwind was one of those.
>
>   paul
>
>

Re: punching paper tape

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Mar 26, 2021, at 3:38 PM, Bill Degnan via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 3:35 PM Al Kossow via cctalk 
> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/26/21 12:31 PM, Guy Fedorkow via cctalk wrote:
>>> wow, what format?
>>>   The codes I'm punching should line up with a long-dead machine,
>>> Whirlwind from MIT, so I think you'd consider them to be 7-track binary,
>>> i.e., same size as an 8-track teletype tape with one track blank
>> 
>> Real Whirlwind tape is narrower than standard 1" paper tape.
>> 
>> The reason I have not offered to do this is the blank tape that I
>> have would not be period correct, nor the right width.
>> 
>> 
> Is it baudot width?  If so someone in the Greenkeys mailing list can help.
> Or they'd be able to help regardless.  I can print standard 1 inch tapes, I
> have a working Teletype right here in my office.  Because that's what
> normal people have, right?

The most common widths are for 5 ("baudot") and 8 (ascii) tape, which have that 
number of tracks plus a sprocket track on 0.1 inch centers, closely filling the 
available space.  But there is also 6-track tape (for typesetting machines) and 
7 track (for some very old machines) that have paper width to match -- same 
track spacing, different track count.  Those are rarely seen but specs for them 
can be found, I tripped over them not too long ago.

Then for something nice and obscure there is 2-track tape ("Wheatstone") for 
punched Morse code.  Creed and MacElroy (in Littleton, MA) made machines for 
that.

paul

Re: punching paper tape

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Mar 26, 2021, at 3:31 PM, Guy Fedorkow via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> wow, what format?
>   The codes I'm punching should line up with a long-dead machine,
> Whirlwind from MIT, so I think you'd consider them to be 7-track binary,
> i.e., same size as an 8-track teletype tape with one track blank, but no
> recognizable coding like ASCII.

Some machines used 7-track paper tape that is narrower than 8 track tape.  I 
thought Whirlwind was one of those.

paul

Re: punching paper tape

[Eric Moore via cctalk]

I can punch arbitrary 8 bit data to 8 level tape. Is the MSB always 0? That
is very easy to do, just make sure the binary looks right and as long as
the pitch between bits is the same as 8 level tape you will end up with
holes in the places you would expect.

If you want 7 level tape punched with some custom width between bits, I.E.
not compliant with EIA RS-227, I can not help you :)

-Eric

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 2:31 PM Guy Fedorkow  wrote:

> wow, what format?
>   The codes I'm punching should line up with a long-dead machine,
> Whirlwind from MIT, so I think you'd consider them to be 7-track binary,
> i.e., same size as an 8-track teletype tape with one track blank, but no
> recognizable coding like ASCII.
>   Can you suggest what format you'd want?
>
>   Thanks!
> /guy
>
> ps,  You can see some of the work behind this at
> https://www.historia-mollimercium.com/whirlwind/
>
>
>
> On 3/26/2021 3:16 PM, Eric Moore wrote:
>
> I can easily punch and verify some tapes for you.
>
> -Eric
>
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 2:15 PM Guy Fedorkow via cctalk <
> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
>> Is there someone in North America that might be willing and able to help
>> out a small historical display project by punching a few short paper
>> tapes?
>> I'm glad to try to accommodate whatever coding requirements are easiest.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> /guy fedorkow
>> fedor...@mit.edu
>>
>>
>

Re: punching paper tape

[Bill Degnan via cctalk]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 3:35 PM Al Kossow via cctalk 
wrote:

> On 3/26/21 12:31 PM, Guy Fedorkow via cctalk wrote:
> > wow, what format?
> >The codes I'm punching should line up with a long-dead machine,
> > Whirlwind from MIT, so I think you'd consider them to be 7-track binary,
> > i.e., same size as an 8-track teletype tape with one track blank
>
> Real Whirlwind tape is narrower than standard 1" paper tape.
>
> The reason I have not offered to do this is the blank tape that I
> have would not be period correct, nor the right width.
>
>
Is it baudot width?  If so someone in the Greenkeys mailing list can help.
Or they'd be able to help regardless.  I can print standard 1 inch tapes, I
have a working Teletype right here in my office.  Because that's what
normal people have, right?
lol

Bill

Re: punching paper tape

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

On 3/26/21 12:31 PM, Guy Fedorkow via cctalk wrote:

wow, what format?
   The codes I'm punching should line up with a long-dead machine,
Whirlwind from MIT, so I think you'd consider them to be 7-track binary,
i.e., same size as an 8-track teletype tape with one track blank


Real Whirlwind tape is narrower than standard 1" paper tape.

The reason I have not offered to do this is the blank tape that I
have would not be period correct, nor the right width.

Re: punching paper tape

[Guy Fedorkow via cctalk]

wow, what format?
  The codes I'm punching should line up with a long-dead machine,
Whirlwind from MIT, so I think you'd consider them to be 7-track binary,
i.e., same size as an 8-track teletype tape with one track blank, but no
recognizable coding like ASCII.
  Can you suggest what format you'd want?

  Thanks!
/guy

ps,  You can see some of the work behind this at
https://www.historia-mollimercium.com/whirlwind/



On 3/26/2021 3:16 PM, Eric Moore wrote:
> I can easily punch and verify some tapes for you.
>
> -Eric
>
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 2:15 PM Guy Fedorkow via cctalk
> mailto:cctalk@classiccmp.org>> wrote:
>
> Is there someone in North America that might be willing and able
> to help
> out a small historical display project by punching a few short
> paper tapes?
> I'm glad to try to accommodate whatever coding requirements are
> easiest.
>
> Thanks!
> /guy fedorkow
> fedor...@mit.edu 
>

Re: punching paper tape

[Eric Moore via cctalk]

I can easily punch and verify some tapes for you.

-Eric

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 2:15 PM Guy Fedorkow via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> Is there someone in North America that might be willing and able to help
> out a small historical display project by punching a few short paper tapes?
> I'm glad to try to accommodate whatever coding requirements are easiest.
>
> Thanks!
> /guy fedorkow
> fedor...@mit.edu
>
>

punching paper tape

[Guy Fedorkow via cctalk]

Is there someone in North America that might be willing and able to help
out a small historical display project by punching a few short paper tapes?
I'm glad to try to accommodate whatever coding requirements are easiest.

Thanks!
/guy fedorkow
fedor...@mit.edu