On this page, scroll to:

1. Introduction [left]
2. Computers described [below] 1103, 1105, CP-667

We'd welcome inputs about any of these machines. [lab]

2. 36-bit Computer Descriptions

2.3 CP-667 - by Jim Rapinac, Lowell Benson, Larry Bolton, Jorgen Andersen, and Larye Parkins. 

     The CP-667 was a new design based on Don Ream's NTDS requirements design, it wasn’t based on a commercial Univac computer. It was slated for use on the Navy's Mobile OPCON program which was subsequently canceled. Not sure what happened to this program. Only Eric Swenson, Vern Leas, and Don Ream knew and only Ream is still alive. 

          The cabinet was based on the USQ20 cabinet because I moved many basic Q20 mechanical components from the Q20 crib to the CP-667 crib! Some components like gussets and side plates were new designs because the CP-667 cabinet was slightly larger than the Q20 due to memory size, 16 I/O channels, thin film memory, etc. Mechanical Design Engineers included Les Neslerand, Seri Yermolenko, and Tony Just, who was also involved for circuit design. Hy Osofsky and Glen Kregess were the key logic designers, shown here with a CP-667, circa 1963. They reported to Finley McLeod who worked for George Raymond.

     I was the PERT planning engineer for the CP667 and we only built one computer, much to our disappointment. I placed the first PO for a wire wrap machine for the back panels. The CP667 was years ahead in technology. This design was the first UNIVAC computer to use Integrated Circuits (ICs) which were packaged in TO-5 cans – looked like big transistors but had 10 leads instead of three. 
     The main memory used a new core, smaller than previous cores, which we obtained from General Ceramics, Keasby, NJ. I negotiated the price and delivery terms for this smaller core and the memory planes used a new core stringing machine.
     Also, the CP-667 was the first product to use the automatic wire wrap machine which I also processed the PO for. Larry Reid was the Mfg. Director and he was reluctant to sign the PO but finally he did.  Regards; Rapp
Photo came from Curt Nelson’s files. [lab]

Finley McLeod led the design team developing the CP-667.  It had 131k of directly addressable core memory.  Although it was designed as a 36-bit machine, the flip of a switch on the control panel had this unit revert to 30-bit operation. 

     I was a computer operator in plant 1 from 1963 to '66.  We had a CP-667 there and I ran a few programs on it.  My memory is that I was told that there was also one in a center in San Diego plus one that was supposed to go aboard a ship - but damaged in a fire thus became spare parts.  Because of my recollection and that the Sperry Univac Computer Genealogy chart showing the number (3), I was thinking that Boslaugh's book with qty 1 CP-667 could in error. 

This machine and the one from San Diego were in the Eagan METC during the 80s according to Gene Achterberg and Dr. Carl Glewwe. Carl also told me that since they couldn’t sell these computers, his job was to use them on various projects to recover some of the costs. David P. Andersen told me that some of their early Voice research software used the CP-667 before they transitioned to the 1616 mini-computers. Earl Vraa chipped in that the early Computer Aided Design work used the CP-667 computer.  [LABenson]

According to one of my listings, the CP-667 used DTL gates manufactured using hybrid techniques. Those were contained in 10-lead TO-5 cans.  The CP-667 Diode Hybrid Gates were documented in procurement specs numbering 7900032 through 7900043. [Larry Bolton]

There are six of these TO-5 cans on the 27-pin card shown on the right.  [lab]

[from Larry Bolton] I found the exact card you have the photos of in our archives. It is a 4224080 card and has six gold colored 10-lead TO-5 can devices on it. I looked at the parts and got part numbers.  There are three Motorola SC90 parts, one Motorola SC92 part, and two Motorola SC94 parts. All were made in 1963.

I went to the vault and got the microfilm for what the cross reference chart mentioned above said were the procurement specs for the CP-667 hybrids. I found three drawings. The 7900034 shows that a Motorola SC92 is the source, the 7900035 shows that a Motorola SC93 was the source, and the 7900036 shows that a Motorola SC94 was the source. By extension, it can be assumed that the SC90 would have been the source for a 7900032. These drawings were generated to support Lee Granberg in 1962.  The SC92 device is nine 1N914 discrete devices along with four 1K resistors in the form of a 1-1-1-2 diode gate.  The SC94 device is two separate 2N2501 transistors, each having an input diode and two bias resistors. This is called a two transistor gate. I could not determine the configuration for the SC90 since the corresponding 7900032 drawing had been superceeded and apparently purged from the system. The superceeding part probably has more information but the microfilm reel is in a format that the vault reader could not load. According to the chart, the SC90 would be similar to the SC92 device but in a 3-4 diode gate configuration.  So, without a question, this particular card was made using hybrid devices. {Editor's note:  It is quite likely that in 1963 the venacular was that these multiple devices configured into the TO-05 cans were called integrated circuits. They were not the 'monolithic integrated circuits' which were used in the 1824 design in 1965 nor in the CP-901 design in 1967.} 

In order to verify this, I went to the computer system to get a parts list for the 4224080 card. To my surprise, none of these parts were on the parts list.  Instead, the parts list has three 7901003 and one 7901004 parts (four parts as opposed to the six on the card we have).  These are both monolithic parts in 14-pin dual in line packages. They would not fit in a 10-lead TO-5 can. So this can’t be the same as the card we have.

What does this mean? It means the original revision of the card used hybrid devices. At some point, as the technology advanced, we created the 1000 series devices and the card was redesigned using the 1000 series to obtain the equivalent functionality. The card parts list revision E (dated 1969) uses the 1000 series devices. The computer system did not have earlier revision parts lists which would have shown the initial use of the hybrid devices back in 1963. So I could not determine when the changeover occurred.

So, we are both correct. CP-667 was originally designed using hybrid integrated circuits in cans. Some of the CP-667 hybrid devices in cans were also made by Fairchild and Texas Instruments. At some point, the cards were redesigned to use the new 7901003 and 7901004 devices. The first user of both the 7901000/7901001 flat pack version and the 7901003/7901004 dual-in-line version is listed as CP667. I wonder if there are actually CP-667 cards using the flat packs. The first program I know of that used the flat packs was UYK-7 and it used lots of them. {Editor's note: The 1824 used a 10-lead monolithic flat-pac circuit.  The CP-901 used the 7901000 and 7901001 monolithic flat-pac components a year and a half before the UYK-7 design.}

We have no examples in our archives of the CP-667 27-pin cards using these newer monolithic devices.  We do have another older CP-667 card with a couple cans on them but these are dual transistors in a 6-lead TO-5 can (part number 7900043) but I don’t believe these were ever made monolithic. By the way, the dual transistor has Motorola part number SM1000. Do not confuse this with the 7901000 part number for the integrated circuit.  Motorola did not make the 7901000 device, at least not initially. The first suppliers for the 1000 series were Westinghouse and Raytheon.

By the way, it is interesting to note that on the early revisions of the 79003xx series drawings for the first monolithic devices which were used in the 1824 (MMRBM) computer (yes, these preceeded the development of the 7901000 series) have a statement as follows: “fabricated on or in a single silicon chip, with deposited or diffused interconnect.” This obviously separates them from the earlier hybrid technologies. I guess we didn’t need to say this when we later generated the 1000 series specs since I doubt that a hybrid approach would have fit in those packages. [Larry Bolton}

From: Jorgen Andersen - I transferred a CS-1 compiler from the 1206 and constructed a FORTRAN IV compiler for the CP-667 during the late 60's.