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 <fedor...@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: > > > >> 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 > > > > > >