Mystery Object - ancient electronics?

Sep 08, 2025 Last reply: 8 months ago 48 Replies

Now that I have seen the internal view (obviously Techie based because the letters omit I and O to avoid confusion with 0 and 1, and it does allow the designer to instruct the person with the soldering iron with unambiguous instructions like "join G5 to G6") it does look like the board layout and the machine it went into were designed as a combination. The fact that there are unused pins does suggest that the target machine could do more than one thing depending on the connections on the board inserted. There also will need data connections feeding what was read from the card or paper tape either electrically (a wire making contact with the drum feeding the card or tape, or else photo-electrically) into the machine. There will be one reader per column or row depending on how the source information is presented, so there will have to be a timing pulse that can be counted to know where the hole is in relation to the medium on which it is found.

That suggests the data connections are the bulk of the connections (perhaps the vertical ones) and the functional connections are in the areas where the pins are more sparse (and there are a few horizontal connections). If that is the case, then this board has the potential for

48 readable positions of which 32 are wired for use. The Census card I found had 48 columns, though I have no way of telling whether that is an indication of function of this board or just a coincidence.

Some modern electronic equipment has jumper switches to tell the works whether it is in set-up mode or operational mode (I have got a thermostat that has a wire free connection to the operating box, and that has a jumper for telling the remote box that it should obey this thermostat, after which the jumper is unset and the remote box does what that thermostat tells it). I wonder if the soldered pins without a wire indicates a jumper position wired for testing and removed for live running? The earlier home computers had PATA connections for magnetic discs or optical discs. These could handle a daisy-chain of two devices, and there was a jumper on each device to identify it as either master or slave (I think that was to indicate that the master was the boot device) so that the processor knew which of the two devices was providing input and any given time.

A fascinating puzzle, Another John, and I hope my musings lead you to others with more historical knowledge that I have. If you do find the answer, can you report back to this group?

We'll see...

I also programmed an IBM1401 and all my programs were

In fact the 80 column punched card was used by IBM long before any computers had even been invented and were used for unit record machines so that the entire deck of cards could be sorted and split up so that collators could do stuff like get a subset of cards of say those who were married etc.

In fact 80-column punched cards were invented by Hollerith before IBM made their first machine.

However I was commenting on your statement "cards came in with the IBM S/360-67)" which reads as though that was the first use.

That isnt saying that was the first time that they were seen in the world, JUST that that may well have been the first time they were used IN THE COMPUTER LAB OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE

Yep, that's what I meant Rod, thanks -- sloppy phrasing on my part I think!

Would have replied before, but I've been out of Usenet for a couple of weeks.

Another John

Sorry IJJ. (btw I'm responding here as I read each message ... not very advisable, but it's the quickest way to catch up.)

We [all] know that 80 columns cards ("Hollerith" cards as they were still referred to occasionally in the 60s-70s) came in long before the IBM S/360 series. It was my fault for not emphasising what Rod was trying to emphasise above: we didn't use punch cards _at Newcastle_ until we got the S/360-67 in

1967.

Further, (answering another point), I did say previously that the mystery object may not necessariiy have been used with either of the two previous "mainframes" [1], the English Electric KDF9 or the Ferranti Pegasus, because Our Founder collected *anything* that looked mechanically or electronically interesting; people very often brought stuff to him, once they knew he had a Collection.

Which reminds me to make another point: NUHCC is emphatically not a museum (which takes massively more resources than we have): we are a Historical Collection, which is intended for posterity, and for educational purposes in the meantime. We have a few small displays.

If sufficiently interested, you can find our catalogue (a work in progress) at

formatting link

Cheers, and thanks everybody for all this "grist to the mill"

Another John

[1] Actually the Pegasus and the KDF9 were just called "the computer" iirc: in fact we believe the Pegaus in 1958 may have been the first computer of any kind in the NE of England.

I will certainly report back, IJJ! :-), and thank you for your continuing interest, and valuable thoughts!

I'm collecting the opinions and will summarise eventually. I have to say: it's all being driven essentially by my own curiosity! Which, I believe, is in the true spririt of this Group :-D

AJ

Another John snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote

No problem, thanks for the followup

Hello all (posted separately to uk.d-i-y and to alt.folklore.computers).

Back in September I asked in these two groups if anyone could enlighten me as to the identity and the purpose of a “mystery object”. It is part of our Newcastle University Historical Computing Collection

formatting link
I said (on 29 Sept.! - sorry) I’d come back with the conclusions.

To remind you, this is the object:

formatting link
The long and short of it is that it is a “patchboard”, probably from the 60s, or earlier. (This fact alone was a valuable revelation to our present committee!)

A decisive extract from the early discussion was this (from IndyJessJohn in DIY):

The first computer room I worked in had ancillary equipment for dealing with punched cards [including] an IBM Collator. … The whole thing was controlled by patch boards. By connecting one hole to another by a jump lead and using a collections of such connections it was possible to programme the machine to subdivide and/or merge depending on the outcome to be achieved. The key similarity was that the control boards had a handle like the one in the picture and that allowed the control board to be lowered into a slot; then a lever moved the slot and board into contact with fixed connectors in the machine. […] The unit pictured is a lot smaller than the ones I wired up ….

Further advice from the DIY group led me to alt.folklore.computing, where more discussion took place, Scott Lurndal's response neatly summarised 2 or 3 of the suggestions made in the group:

This appears to be a pre-programmed plug that plugs into a matching plug-board (rather than wiring with individual jumper wires; the user could simply plug in this entire board). Perhaps a crypto-key, but also could be a sort pattern for a card sorter.

which in turn led me to Glenn Henry’s Collection of patch boards and the like:

formatting link
I emailed Glenn, and he replied (these days it’s always a pleasant surprise to get a reply from a “mature” website!). Basically, he said that although he has very many patchboards, he’s never seen one like this, and his examples are all much bigger..

CONCLUSION: We would have liked to identify more closely the machine with which the patchboard might have been used, but discussions dried up, and so ...

(1) This patchboard obviously didn’t use jumpleads: it has been soldered.

(2) Therefore it was made in-house for a fixed purpose, which probably would never change (see above).

(3) It may possibly have been made for use with [a peripheral for] our first computer - a Ferranti Pegasus (1957-1963), or its successor an EE KDF9 (1963-1974). (Our subsequent mainframes were IBM S/360-67, IBM S/370-168 and an Amdahl 5860 - none likely to have used this object.)

(4) Or it may have nothing to do with anything in the University’s Computing Laboratory, and was simply given to our "founding father” as something for his collection: we will never know, because time has marched on, and there is no-one now alive who will have known this object ‘in person’.

Thanks All, and best wishes, Another John

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required