🚀 go-pugleaf

In a recent article a...@sei.cmu.edu (Arthur Evans) writes:
>ph...@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) writes
>>> ... the robustness of the 026 [was limited by] its power supply.
>>> Small filter capacitors, skinny rectifiers, or lightweight
>>> transformers limited the available current enough that the thing
>>> couldn't punch more than three holes at once.
>
>My memory is that the mechanical design also was not up to punching more
>than 3 or 4 holes at a time -- the punch die would bend, or some such
>thing.  If the power supply was also inadequate, then apparently the
>whole thing was designed properly to the same specs.  I'm quite sure
>that duplicating binary cards was not part of the intent of the
>designers.

Right; a major source of problems we had (at a previous employer) was the
students who insisted on duplicating a binary deck.  (The biggest problem
was students who would pull out the program drum with the program switch
halfway up: it would tear out the starwheels.  We finally locked up all
the drums, and I kept a bottle of starwheels in my desk.)

We found that you could dup a binary card if you (a) turned off the print
mechanism and (b) duplicated only one or two columns at a time by
bouncing your finger on the DUP key.  The print pins would be jammed
if they were left on, and the stuttering of the DUP function apparently
satisfied the capacity problems with the power supply.  It still wasn't
a recommended procedure, but it served in an emergency.

Joe Morris