26 Mar
2021
26 Mar
'21
12:15 p.m.
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
fedorkow at mit.edu
26 Mar
26 Mar
12:16 p.m.
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 at 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
fedorkow at mit.edu
12:31 p.m.
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 at classiccmp.org <mailto:cctalk at 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
fedorkow at mit.edu <mailto:fedorkow at mit.edu>
12:35 p.m.
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.
12:38 p.m.
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 3:35 PM Al Kossow via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
wrote:
On 3/26/21 12:31 PM, Guy Fedorkow via cctalk wrote:
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
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.
1:29 p.m.
On Mar 26, 2021, at 3:38 PM, Bill Degnan via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 3:35 PM Al Kossow via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
wrote:
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
On 3/26/21 12:31 PM, Guy Fedorkow via cctalk
wrote:
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? 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.
12:40 p.m.
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 <fedorkow at mit.edu> 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 at 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
fedorkow at mit.edu
1:02 p.m.
On Mar 26, 2021, at 3:31 PM, Guy Fedorkow via cctalk
<cctalk at 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
1:43 p.m.
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 at 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
1:53 p.m.
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 <fedorkow at mit.edu> 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:
tape. I thought Whirlwind was one of those.
> On Mar 26, 2021, at 3:31 PM, Guy Fedorkow via cctalk <
cctalk at
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
paul
2:15 p.m.
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.
2:33 p.m.
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 <cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org> on behalf of Steve Malikoff via
cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 2:15 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
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.
2:58 p.m.
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.
4:01 p.m.
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/s…
you can see it is narrower by one punch than a normal 8-channel tape
5:41 p.m.
On Mar 26, 2021, at 7:01 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 3/26/21 2:58 PM, Steve Malikoff 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)
paul
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/s…
you can see it is narrower by one punch than a normal 8-channel tape 
6:09 p.m.
On 3/26/21, 8:41 PM, "cctalk on behalf of Paul Koning via cctalk"
<cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org on behalf of cctalk at 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/
7:33 p.m.
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 <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
wrote:
On 3/26/21, 8:41 PM, "cctalk on behalf of Paul
Koning via cctalk" <
cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org on behalf of cctalk at 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/
8:09 p.m.
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/s…
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 0000: data byte 00000000 absolute position 00000006
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
27 Mar
27 Mar
12:52 a.m.
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
1:10 a.m.
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-bounces at 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?
-----
1137
days inactive
1138
days old
19 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
aek＠bitsavers.org -
amp1ron＠gmail.com -
billdegnan＠gmail.com -
cc＠informatik.uni-stuttgart.de -
dkelvey＠hotmail.com -
fedorkow＠mit.edu -
mooreericnyc＠gmail.com -
paulkoning＠comcast.net -
pbirkel＠gmail.com -
steven＠malikoff.com