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
-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:
> S
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
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
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 tr
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-channe
> 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
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 l
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"
-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'
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
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
st
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 blan
> 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
> 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 bla
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 s
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., sam
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
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 w
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?
20 matches
Mail list logo
