Wikipedia has a lot of info on the IBM 513 and 519 Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 4, 2025, at 06:32, Bill Degnan via cctalk <[email protected]> > wrote: > > David, > My Operators Guide (to) Electronic Punched Card Accounting Machines put out > by IBM in 1951 lists the 513, 514, 519. I agree that the two you're > looking for were special units, and it appears not commercially available. > To locate the docs you need to track someone down who has documents related > to the ENIAC itself. I might try the Hagley Museum in Wilmington, > Delaware, sometimes they have rare technical documentation and it might be > worth a shot. > Bill > kennettclassic.com / vintagecomputer.net > >> On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 6:51 AM David Wade via cctalk <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 03/09/2025 21:48, Brian L. Stuart wrote: >>> Apologies in advance to anyone who gets this multiple times. >>> I know a number of you are on more that one of these lists. >>> >>> I'm looking for some information on a couple of the early >>> IBM unit record devices, in particular the Type 512A and >>> the Type 518. Ideally, I'd like to get the mechanical >>> dimensions in enough detail to create a CAD model. >> >> As I assume you are aware, but perhaps others on here are not, that >> these pre-date computing and must come from the era when data processing >> involved only punched cards and I feel well before the term "Unit >> Record" was coined. Sadly, this seems to be a forgotten era and there is >> very little information about it on the web. >> >>> The background is that I'd like to improve the model that >>> I'm using in my ENIAC simulator and I'm involved with a >>> school in Arizona that's working on a project to build a >>> full-scale model of the ENIAC. There's a letter from >>> IBM in the ENIAC archives that suggest the use of the >>> 512A and the 518. So I'm pretty sure those are the ones >>> they used, but I haven't really been able to find any >>> details about them. We've found a fair amount of >>> information on the Type 513, and from photographs, the >>> punch used on the machine seems similar to the 513, but >>> is smaller. >> >> Looking at the photographs linked from here:- >> >> https://www.columbia.edu/cu/computinghistory/eniac.html >> >> in particular >> >> https://www.columbia.edu/cu/computinghistory/eniac6.jpg >> >> I think you are correct, but I wonder if the 512A and 518 were >> "specials" which is why there is little information on them. >> I believe that in Punched Card processing normally you initially punched >> cards by hand and any punches without keyboards were some kind of >> calculating re-producer. >> >> So for example on a loan system, you charged interest every 6 months. >> For each loan you had a card with the loan amount. >> You fed these into a calculating reproducing punch which calculated the >> interest and punched a new card with the interest owing on it. (we >> actually punched two) >> You could use these to produce the interest letters. When the interest >> was paid you could use the cards in a tabulator to print a summary of >> the days/weeks payments. >> After a month the cards you had left could be used to chase payment... >> .. when I started work in 1976 one of my first jobs was to replace such >> a system with screens.... >> >> So any punch you used probably had a reader attached and a plug board >> that controlled how the cards were copied. The 513 is such a device. So >> it has reader, plugboard and a punch. >> I feel the devices ENIAC used were simply punches or readers. Looking >> through the publicly accessible archives at >> >> https://www.columbia.edu/cu/computinghistory/ >> >> its apparent that IBM had already produced custom versions of their >> equipment, so it likely that these were specials. >> The only other pictures I could find were in this book, 28th page in the >> PDF >> >> >> http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/punchedCard/Training/IBM_Accounting_Course_1949.pdf >> >> which shows a reproducing punch so I wonder if that is a 512.. >> >> >>> >>> Thanks in advance, >>> BLS >> I am sorry not to be more helpful >> Dave >> >>
