20 Sep
2013
20 Sep
'13
2:24 p.m.
All,
Thank you for your generous donations to the STEM program I'm working
on. I have a question or two about the punch cards I've received.
Some of the cards have printing on one side, and are "dog eared" or
have the angled corner on one end.
Other cards have the printing reversed; the dog-ear corner is on the
other end of the card when I'm looking at the printing.
If those cards with the reversed "cut corner" or "dogear" were used
in
the same machine as the first set of cards, they'd be read
"backwards." ... so why the two different formats?
--
-Jon
Jonathan Katz, Indianapolis, IN.
20 Sep
20 Sep
2:38 p.m.
On 20 Sep 2013, at 14:24, Jonathan Katz <jon at jonworld.com> wrote:
All,
Thank you for your generous donations to the STEM program I'm working
on. I have a question or two about the punch cards I've received.
Some of the cards have printing on one side, and are "dog eared" or
have the angled corner on one end.
Other cards have the printing reversed; the dog-ear corner is on the
other end of the card when I'm looking at the printing.
If those cards with the reversed "cut corner" or "dogear" were used
in
the same machine as the first set of cards, they'd be read
"backwards." ... so why the two different formats?
--
-Jon
Jonathan Katz, Indianapolis, IN.
Sorry I never got those out?I got sidetracked last week and I had the flu this week.
3:09 p.m.
On 20 Sep 2013, at 14:24, Jonathan Katz <jon at
jonworld.com> wrote:
> Thank you for your generous donations to the STEM program I'm working
> on. I have a question or two about the punch cards I've received.
On Fri,
20 Sep 2013, Cory Smelosky wrote:
Sorry I never got those out?I got sidetracked last
week and I had the flu this week.
s'OK, I sent him a handful
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
http://www.xenosoft.com/FPUIB
3:13 p.m.
On 9/20/13 11:24 AM, Jonathan Katz wrote:
> I have a question or two about the punch cards
On Fri, 20 Sep 2013, Al Kossow
wrote:
The historically correct term is punchED cards
BLANK cards, for use in a punch, were sometimes called "punch cards".
But, any with data, were, indeed, punchED cards.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
http://www.xenosoft.com/FPUIB
3:46 p.m.
On 9/20/13 12:13 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
And no matter what journalists said in 2000, it was CHIPS and not CHADS that
a card punch collects in the CHIP box.
On 9/20/13
11:24 AM, Jonathan Katz wrote:
> I have a question or two about the punch cards
On Fri, 20 Sep 2013, Al Kossow
wrote:
The historically correct term is punchED cards
BLANK cards, for use in a punch, were sometimes called "punch cards".
But, any with data, were, indeed, punchED cards.
3:44 p.m.
On 09/20/2013 11:39 AM, Al Kossow wrote:
On 9/20/13 11:24 AM, Jonathan Katz wrote:
A bit of trivia here - SEGASA of Spain (part of SEGA JAPAN) made an
arcade game called Astro-Data which used standard sized punch cards to
print out the results of the Astrology 'program'. This machine was
entirely electromechanical and the 'memory' was a rather large drum
which used bumps to represent the data.
I have restored one of these and put a video of it up on YouTube a few
years back:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1dnAzrce9E
I have a question for our European (Italy preferred) friends - a
customer of mine in Italy has one of these machines and needs to rebuild
the punch card assembly. It appears it is not standard IBM fare and he
could use some help making it work again...anyone interested please
contact me off-list and I'll see about connecting you to him.
John :-#)#
--
John's Jukes Ltd. 2343 Main St., Vancouver, BC, Canada V5T 3C9
Call (604)872-5757 or Fax 872-2010 (Pinballs, Jukes, VideoGames)
www.flippers.com
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out"
I have a question or two about the punch cards
The historically correct term is punchED cards
2:40 p.m.
On 20/09/2013 19:24, Jonathan Katz wrote:
All,
Thank you for your generous donations to the STEM program I'm working
on. I have a question or two about the punch cards I've received.
Some of the cards have printing on one side, and are "dog eared" or
have the angled corner on one end.
Other cards have the printing reversed; the dog-ear corner is on the
other end of the card when I'm looking at the printing.
You always look at a card from the printed side. Data is stored in
columns and generally used "left to right" , in the same way that we
read "latin" text...
Many computers read them that way as well, but some readers move the
card along the other axis, and so read a row of holes at a time....
If those cards with the reversed "cut
corner" or "dogear" were used in
the same machine as the first set of cards, they'd be read
"backwards." ... so why the two different formats?
No you always read from the printed size. I think the different corners
allowed you to easily separate decks. So you might use those with the
left corner trimmed for JCL and those with the right corner for data
cards. Then they were easily separated after the run. Were I worked we
also used different colours. So when we had card master files you read
the green cards and punched blue one week, then the next read the blue
and punched red, and lastly read the red and punched green so we always
had three generations of data...
Dave
G4UGM
3:51 p.m.
On 09/20/2013 11:40 AM, Dave wrote:
Many computers read them that way as well, but some
readers move the
card along the other axis, and so read a row of holes at a time....
I suppose one could make the argument that cards read in row-binary
could be read faster than if read in column-binary, but all of the very
high-speed card readers that I've ever seen (e.g. CDC 405), read card in
column-binary fashion; i.e. 12 holes at a time, rather than 80.
I suspect that may have been to accommodate "short" cards (40 column)
more easily. The 405 had gizmos that allowed for short cards.
The 415 punch, on the other hand, punched in row-binary fashion (i.e. 80
columns at a time).
A lot of unit-record gear operated in row-binary fashion also.
--Chuck
4:52 p.m.
New subject: Punch Cards Q, and rambling reminiscent A's
> Many computers read them that way as well, but
some readers move the
> card along the other axis, and so read a row of holes at a time....
On Fri,
20 Sep 2013, Chuck Guzis wrote:
I suppose one could make the argument that cards read
in row-binary
could be read faster than if read in column-binary, but all of the very
high-speed card readers that I've ever seen (e.g. CDC 405), read card in
column-binary fashion; i.e. 12 holes at a time, rather than 80.
The change from brush/brass-roller to light/photocell made a
difference there.
Brass roller reading had mechanical limits on speed, and 80 V 12
made a difference. With the change to photocells, SOME of the
mechanical speed limits were eased.
Half a century ago, I was hearing stories, . . .
S'posedly, IBM first tried patenting the shape of the hole. That
led to the existence of round-hole cards. But, that patent was
overturned.
Then IBM patented the brass roller. "Surely, THAT will stop CDC
dead in their tracks." Instead, not being able to use the existing
mechanical technology, they did the engineering to use photocells,
and leapfrogged IBM.
Our sources half a century were not authoritative, but it made a
good story, with a moral of "don't be too brutal with the competition,
it will come back to byte you.".
I suspect that may have been to accommodate
"short" cards (40 column)
more easily. The 405 had gizmos that allowed for short cards.
after most of the changes. I don't remember under-sized cards
being around when they sped up the readers. BUT, I was unaware
of what was going on in other circles.
When we talked about 40 column cards, we meant every-other-column
port-a-punch cards.
It was truly astonishingly impressive when IBM was able to
successfully read most of the CBS port-a-punch cards that
had a stamp stuck on them and dropped in USPS mailboxes!
It was less astonishing when IBM's data processing of the CBS
"National Driver's Test" resulted in percentage totals nowhere
near 100%. On the live broadcast, you could see Walter Cronkite
stalling while my father fed him manually recalculated results.
Starting the next week, our house was full of IBM FORTRAN manuals,
and FORTRAN textbooks, such as McCracken and Decima Anderson.
If they hadn't blown it, I might have become a mathematician
or a paleontologist.
In deference to Al's nit-picking, I think that the answer is that
while BULK QUANTITIES of blank cards for use in a punch could be,
and sometimes were, called "PUNCH cards", but that if the box has
been opened, then they should be assumed to be "punchED cards".
That would set a lower limit of 2000. Or should we apply the rule
only to the case of 5 boxes (10000 cards)?
And, of course, all of the IBM EAM equipment (there are some ads
on eBay) was called "PUNCHED card accounting systems", since what
would be the point of feeding blank cards into the read hoppers?
(makes the output of the 084 and 407 pretty predictable!)
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
http://www.xenosoft.com/FPUIB
5:25 p.m.
New subject: Punch Cards Q, and rambling reminiscent A's
On 9/20/2013 2:52 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
Ben.
stalling while my father fed him manually recalculated
results.
Starting the next week, our house was full of IBM FORTRAN manuals,
and FORTRAN textbooks, such as McCracken and Decima Anderson.
If they hadn't blown it, I might have become a mathematician
or a paleontologist.
Never too late to dig in the back yard for old bones ... :-)
5:44 p.m.
New subject: Punch Cards Q, and rambling reminiscent A's
On 9/20/13 1:52 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
In deference to Al's nit-picking
All of the documentation I've looked at from the time called them "punched"
cards
which is why I said "historically accurate". I'd like to know about any
books or manufacturer's docs from the 50's or 60's that refer to them
as "punch" cards.
I also just checked the documentation on Documation card readers, and they
REQUIRE that the notch be on the leading edge. This is a major PITA
for me right now as I try to read mixed-notch decks.
Looks like it may be an easy fix though (ignore the top column in the logic
detecting the card edges).
6:16 p.m.
New subject: Punch Cards Q, and rambling reminiscent A's
> In deference to Al's nit-picking
I feel
that I was a LITTLE over the line with that, but assumed that Al
would forgive me.
On Fri, 20 Sep 2013, Al Kossow wrote:
All of the documentation I've looked at from the
time called them
"punched" cards which is why I said "historically accurate". I'd
like to
know about any books or manufacturer's docs from the 50's or 60's that
refer to them as "punch" cards.
If I can find a contact address for Wil Price, I'll ask. He was writing
numerous such texts in the late 1960s.
Other than that, I don't have anything definitive, although YOU DO.
I do recall being CORRECTED on the job in 1968? when I said "punched
cards" in reference to an unopened box. Boss said something on the order
of "they aren't PUNCHED until you do so. Get started." But, he was
British, so there could also be the factor of two peoples divided by a
common language.
I also just checked the documentation on Documation
card readers, and they
REQUIRE that the notch be on the leading edge. This is a major PITA
for me right now as I try to read mixed-notch decks.
OUCH!
most cards that I have are corner cut on the column 1 end, but DEFINITELY
not all.
Looks like it may be an easy fix though (ignore the
top column in the logic
detecting the card edges).
or a paper shear? Then you'd have some cards with
both corners cut.
7:18 p.m.
New subject: Punch Cards Q, and rambling reminiscent A's
From: Al Kossow
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 2:45 PM
On 9/20/13 1:52 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
> In deference to Al's nit-picking
All of the documentation I've looked at from the
time called them
"punched" cards which is why I said "historically accurate".
There is a physiological/phonological reason for "punched card" to
become "punch card", having to do with the articulatory difficulty
of pronouncing the cluster [?tk] which occurs in rapid (i.e. not
carefully articulated) English language speech.
I can pretty much guarantee you that even the purists who insist that
they *always* say [p?n?t.kard] are "hearing" what they are thinking,
and that a sound spectrogram will show that there is no evidence for
a [t] in the speech stream of a normal-speed utterance of the phrase.
I'm speaking here as a trained linguist who spent 2 years in phonetics
labs studying this particular sort of phenomenon, rather than pulling
the claim out of thin air. I'm not disputing what the written language
says the phrase is.
Rich Alderson
Vintage Computing Sr. Systems Engineer
Living Computer Museum
2245 1st Avenue S
Seattle, WA 98134
mailto:RichA at LivingComputerMuseum.org
http://www.LivingComputerMuseum.org/
6:54 p.m.
New subject: Punch Cards Q, and rambling reminiscent A's
On 09/20/2013 01:52 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
Our sources half a century were not authoritative, but
it made a
good story, with a moral of "don't be too brutal with the competition,
it will come back to byte you.".
Well, CDC was pretty good with vacuum capstans, which separated them
from IBM not only in the card, but also the tape
department. IBM used
pinch rollers in tape drives, but CDC used slotted
counter-rotating
air-bearing capstans. In the 405, pinch rollers were only used for
positive transport of the card being read through the photodiode array
(two columns; a card was actually read twice and the results compared;
vacuum capstans were used in the picker assembly.
There were additional photo-detectors near the top and bottom of the
card read station to correct for skew.
Cards were turned through two right angles after they were read, so the
stacker tray was parallel to the input hopper, with both mounted on a
shake table assembly. The unit was very noisy, particularly when
compared to something like an IBM 2501 reader, but the read speed was
evident just by the sound.
A screw-up in the stacker could lead to several succeeding cards being
"accordion pleated".
We just called them "cards". I suspect that if you were a university
professor, you called them "Hollerith cards" with a certain air of
superiority.
--Chuck
5:27 p.m.
On 20/09/2013 20:51, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 09/20/2013 11:40 AM, Dave wrote:
The only readers I have seen that read row binary were IBM but I said
"some" as I didn't know if they were the only readers that worked that
way. It seems obvious it should be faster that way so I have in the past
wondered if IBM had a patent on reading by the row...
Many computers read them that way as well, but
some readers move the
card along the other axis, and so read a row of holes at a time....
I suppose one could make the argument that cards read in row-binary
could be read faster than if read in column-binary, but all of the
very high-speed card readers that I've ever seen (e.g. CDC 405), read
card in column-binary fashion; i.e. 12 holes at a time, rather than 80.
I suspect that may have been to accommodate
"short" cards (40 column)
more easily. The 405 had gizmos that allowed for short cards.
I don't see how that makes it easier. You still need an adjustable guide
of some kind. Did IBM equipment ever use short cards, or even the round
hole type...
The 415 punch, on the other hand, punched in
row-binary fashion (i.e.
80 columns at a time).
but no patent on punching....
A lot of unit-record gear operated in row-binary
fashion also.
--Chuck
6:26 p.m.
From: Dave
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 2:28 PM
Did IBM equipment ever use short cards, or even the
round
hole type...
As it happens, a similar thread arose on comp.os.vms a couple of weeks
ago, and I went off and did some research. The following post resulted.
TL;DR? IBM used round holes until 1928, beginning from Hollerith's own
tabulating company through the C-T-R days and the name change in 1925.
From: Rich Alderson
Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
Subject: Punch card history
[was Re: [OT] Lost skills, was: Re: Robustness to rogue processes]
Date: 04 Sep 2013 14:51:50 -0400
Message-ID: <mddeh94ctdl.fsf_-_ at panix5.panix.com>
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 22.3
: "Richard B. Gilbert" writes:
:: On 8/30/2013 4:48 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
::: Yeah. Punched cards were not exactly the greatest thing ever
::: invented...
:: Eighty Column Punched cards came out of the 1930s give or take a
:: couple of years. They're hopelessly obsolete today but from the
:: late 1920s to the early 1970s, 80 column punched cards were how data
:: processing was done!
: According to IBM's own history site, the rectangular punch came along
: in 1928. Prior to that, round holes (by 1928, 45 columns by 12 rows)
: were the norm. Watson wanted a patentable "IBM card", and went with
: the new rectangular hole format.
: http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/ibm100/us/en/icons/punchcard/
: The older format was retained by companies like Univac, and referred
: to as "90 column cards" (2 lines of 6-bit representations in 45
: columns).
:: Today, you would probably find punched cards in a museum!
: As a matter of fact, we have an 029 punch and an 082 sorter in our
: exhibit space at Living Computer Museum (Seattle).
Rich Alderson
Vintage Computing Sr. Systems Engineer
Living Computer Museum
2245 1st Avenue S
Seattle, WA 98134
mailto:RichA at LivingComputerMuseum.org
http://www.LivingComputerMuseum.org/
21 Sep
21 Sep
2:49 p.m.
On 20/09/2013 23:26, Rich Alderson wrote:
From: Dave
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 2:28 PM
Thanks for
that, I know in the UK we used round hole cards around that
time. It seems to me that we have lost the History of office automation
between the invention of the punch card and the introduction of computers...
Did IBM equipment ever use short cards, or even
the round
hole type...
As it happens, a similar thread arose on comp.os.vms a couple of
weeks
ago, and I went off and did some research. The following post resulted.
TL;DR? IBM used round holes until 1928, beginning from Hollerith's own
tabulating company through the C-T-R days and the name change in 1925.
From: Rich Alderson
Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
Subject: Punch card history
[was Re: [OT] Lost skills, was: Re: Robustness to rogue processes]
Date: 04 Sep 2013 14:51:50 -0400
Message-ID: <mddeh94ctdl.fsf_-_ at panix5.panix.com>
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 22.3
: "Richard B. Gilbert" writes:
:: On 8/30/2013 4:48 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
::: Yeah. Punched cards were not exactly the greatest thing ever
::: invented...
:: Eighty Column Punched cards came out of the 1930s give or take a
:: couple of years. They're hopelessly obsolete today but from the
:: late 1920s to the early 1970s, 80 column punched cards were how data
:: processing was done!
: According to IBM's own history site, the rectangular punch came along
: in 1928. Prior to that, round holes (by 1928, 45 columns by 12 rows)
: were the norm. Watson wanted a patentable "IBM card", and went with
: the new rectangular hole format.
: http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/ibm100/us/en/icons/punchcard/
: The older format was retained by companies like Univac, and referred
: to as "90 column cards" (2 lines of 6-bit representations in 45
: columns).
:: Today, you would probably find punched cards in a museum!
: As a matter of fact, we have an 029 punch and an 082 sorter in our
: exhibit space at Living Computer Museum (Seattle).
Rich Alderson
Vintage Computing Sr. Systems Engineer
Living Computer Museum
2245 1st Avenue S
Seattle, WA 98134
mailto:RichA at LivingComputerMuseum.org
http://www.LivingComputerMuseum.org/
20 Sep
20 Sep
7:06 p.m.
On 09/20/2013 02:27 PM, Dave wrote:
The only readers I have seen that read row binary
were IBM but I said
"some" as I didn't know if they were the only readers that worked that
way. It seems obvious it should be faster that way so I have in the past
wondered if IBM had a patent on reading by the row...
Yup, the card reader on the 704 read cards starting with the nine's row,
storing right and left sides into 26-bit words. Now you know why
FORTRAN reserved the last 8 columns for a sequence number--the 704
couldn't read them! The 1402 reader, read column-wise and I believe
all subsequent IBM readers did also.
A quick check in my library says that the "short" cards were 51 column,
not 40. I haven't the faintest idea of what or why that particular
format came about. Perhaps something like perforated inventory cards,
where a part of the card could be torn off and used as a printed record?
Anyone know for certain what the 51-column card was for?
--Chuck
7:34 p.m.
On 21/09/2013 00:06, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 09/20/2013 02:27 PM, Dave wrote:
I think the S/360 and S/370 reader/punch machines read by row, e.g. the
2540
http://bitsavers.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/pdf/ibm/25xx/A21-9033-1_2540_C…
and oddly when reading 51-Column cards it stored the data in the middle
(Cols 15-65) of the buffer (see page 9)
but certainty the 1130 high speed reader read by column, and I believe
that it was supplied with a small toggle that caught the cards and made
them stack taped away in an ineffective position. As a result it would
spew cards across the room if not properley installed....
The only readers I have seen that read row binary
were IBM but I said
"some" as I didn't know if they were the only readers that worked that
way. It seems obvious it should be faster that way so I have in the past
wondered if IBM had a patent on reading by the row...
Yup, the card reader on the 704 read cards starting with the nine's
row, storing right and left sides into 26-bit words. Now you know why
FORTRAN reserved the last 8 columns for a sequence number--the 704
couldn't read them! The 1402 reader, read column-wise and I believe
all subsequent IBM readers did also.
A quick check in my library says that the
"short" cards were 51
column, not 40. I haven't the faintest idea of what or why that
particular format came about. Perhaps something like perforated
inventory cards, where a part of the card could be torn off and used
as a printed record?
Anyone know for certain what the 51-column card was for?
I think the card just grew over the years..
--Chuck
Dave
8:26 p.m.
On 09/20/2013 04:06 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
Yup, the card reader on the 704 read cards starting
with the nine's row,
storing right and left sides into 26-bit words. Now you know why
FORTRAN reserved the last 8 columns for a sequence number--the 704
couldn't read them! The 1402 reader, read column-wise and I believe
all subsequent IBM readers did also.
(typo) Make that 36 bits!
Supposedly, the 5 column limit on FORTRAN statement numbers was derived
from the 15-bit width of the 704 index registers. I
don't know if that
story is apocryphal or not.
--Chuck
3:04 p.m.
The card reading device does not look at, nor care, about that corner
angle cut.
As George Morrow pointed out, stsndards are wonderful, everybody can have
a UNIQUE standard of their own.
Common sense calls for being consistent within a given deck. That way,
the corner will alert you to a card that is upside down or backwards.
Also, draw a diagonal line on the top of the deck.
The corner cut carried no more weight than the color coding.
Notice the different colored stripes. I was once admonished that I
didn't "have the required level of clearance to handle a deck that color"
In sddition, watch for an ugly little notch on the top edge. THAT means
that that card was re-keyed with a Verifier, and that column didn't match.
And a little notch on the 80 end means that the entire card matched in the
verification re-keying.
The last (and VERY last) time that we had keypunching by a service bureau,
they "saved time" by verifying the cards while they were still blank, so
that a "verified" deck did not require re-keying!
Q: /* had special meaning in 360 JCL. How did you duplicate a deck of C
source code?
(and what if the comments had */ in columns 79,80?)
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
http://www.xenosoft.com/FPUIB
Bury me face down, 9 edge first.
4029
days inactive
4030
days old
25 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
aek＠bitsavers.org -
b4＠gewt.net -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
cclist＠sydex.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
dave.g4ugm＠gmail.com -
fraveydank＠gmail.com -
jon＠jonworld.com -
pinball＠telus.net -
RichA＠LivingComputerMuseum.org