punching paper tape
mooreericnyc at gmail.com
Fri Mar 26 15:53:12 CDT 2021
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
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.
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 3:43 PM Guy Fedorkow <fedorkow at mit.edu> wrote:
> You are correct, the Whirlwind tape was only seven tracks wide, with
> the same pitch as what became eight-track tape.
> 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
> 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!
> 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
More information about the cctech