Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #169903 > unrolled thread

off topic Question of the day..

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  off topic Question of the day.. Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-07-09 03:40 +0200
    Re: off topic Question of the day.. Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-07-09 06:50 +0200
      Re: off topic Question of the day.. Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2016-07-09 23:30 +0200
        Re: off topic Question of the day.. Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-07-10 00:30 +0200
    Re: off topic Question of the day.. Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> - 2016-07-09 09:00 +0200
      Re: off topic Question of the day.. Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-07-09 14:00 +0200
        Re: off topic Question of the day.. Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> - 2016-07-10 00:40 +0200
          Re: off topic Question of the day.. Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-07-10 01:20 +0200
            Re: off topic Question of the day.. rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-07-10 04:00 +0200
              Re: off topic Question of the day.. Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-07-10 06:20 +0200
                Re: off topic Question of the day.. Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 15:10 +0200
                  Re: off topic Question of the day.. Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-07-10 20:10 +0200
                    Re: off topic Question of the day.. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-07-10 20:30 +0200
                      Re: off topic Question of the day.. Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-07-10 20:50 +0200
                        Re: off topic Question of the day.. Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 21:10 +0200
                          Re: off topic Question of the day.. Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-07-11 00:30 +0200
                            Re: off topic Question of the day.. David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-07-11 02:40 +0200
                              Re: off topic Question of the day.. rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-07-11 03:30 +0200
                                Re: off topic Question of the day.. Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2016-07-11 05:30 +0200
                                  Re: off topic Question of the day.. David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-07-11 06:10 +0200
                                    Re: off topic Question of the day.. Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 13:20 +0200
                                      Re: off topic Question of the day.. Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-07-11 13:50 +0200
                                  Re: off topic Question of the day.. Dennis Wicks <wix@mgssub.com> - 2016-07-14 18:30 +0200
                                    Re: off topic Question of the day.. David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-07-16 04:00 +0200
                                    Re: off topic Question of the day.. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-07-16 05:50 +0200
                                      Re: off topic Question of the day.. Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 11:00 +0200
                                        Re: off topic Question of the day.. Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2016-07-16 13:40 +0200
                                        Re: off topic Question of the day.. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-07-16 14:30 +0200
                                          Re: off topic Question of the day.. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-07-16 15:00 +0200
                                          Re: off topic Question of the day.. Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2016-07-16 15:50 +0200
                                            Re: off topic Question of the day.. Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 21:10 +0200
                                            Re: off topic Question of the day.. Andre Majorel <aym-naibed@teaser.fr> - 2016-07-17 10:00 +0200
                                          Re: off topic Question of the day.. Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 21:00 +0200
                                      Re: off topic Question of the day.. David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-07-17 02:40 +0200
                                        Re: off topic Question of the day.. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-07-17 02:50 +0200
                                          Re: off topic Question of the day.. David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-07-17 07:40 +0200
                                Straying further OT, Re: off topic Question of the day.. David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-07-11 05:50 +0200
                Re: off topic Question of the day.. Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 21:00 +0200
                  Re: off topic Question of the day.. Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-07-11 00:30 +0200
                    Re: off topic Question of the day.. Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 00:50 +0200
                      Re: off topic Question of the day.. Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-07-11 01:00 +0200
                Re: off topic Question of the day.. David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-07-10 23:30 +0200
                  Re: off topic Question of the day.. Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-07-11 01:00 +0200
                    Re: off topic Question of the day.. Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 01:00 +0200
            Re: off topic Question of the day.. Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2016-07-10 10:50 +0200
              Re: off topic Question of the day.. Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-07-10 14:20 +0200
                Re: off topic Question of the day.. Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2016-07-10 16:10 +0200
    Re: off topic Question of the day.. deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 12:40 +0200
      Re: off topic Question of the day.. Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-07-10 19:40 +0200
        Re: off topic Question of the day.. Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-07-10 20:40 +0200
        Re: paper sizes (was: off topic Question of the day..) Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2016-07-10 23:50 +0200

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#169984

On Monday 11 July 2016 05:02:42 David Wright wrote:
> "Please remember that the greater the "lb"
> associated with a paper not always determines that it is a thicker
> sheet. Notice that the 67lb Vellum Bristol has a lower gsm than a 65lb
> cover because they are two different categories of cardstocks and are
> scaled differently." (paperworks.com)

I glazed over when Gene started to talk about 28 lbs of paper.  28 lbs is 2 
stone.  I couldn't carry 28 lbs of paper.

I buy paper by the 500 sheets!!  And you don't need to  know what the numbers 
(80 gsm etc) actually mean, though I do.  100 is when you really want 
something to look nice.  120 is thin card, 90 is what I used on all documents 
leaving the house for some years (because I was in business) and I now use 80 
because I am skinflint in my old age.  70, the once I ever bought it some 
years ago, caused my printer to jam up.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#169985

On Monday 11 July 2016 07:18:44 Lisi Reisz wrote:

> On Monday 11 July 2016 05:02:42 David Wright wrote:
> > "Please remember that the greater the "lb"
> > associated with a paper not always determines that it is a thicker
> > sheet. Notice that the 67lb Vellum Bristol has a lower gsm than a
> > 65lb cover because they are two different categories of cardstocks
> > and are scaled differently." (paperworks.com)
>
> I glazed over when Gene started to talk about 28 lbs of paper.  28 lbs
> is 2 stone.  I couldn't carry 28 lbs of paper.

I can, but its done carefully else I damage me back some more.

But put it in this context Lisi, really nice output one usually puts on 
24 lb. A 500 sheet ream is pretty close to 2" thick, just a little long.  
This 28 lb stock is not quite 3" thick for a 500 sheet ream. And I share 
the dislike for 20 lb, it will ocassionaly hang up in the printer, but 
it quietly says cheap if you hand it out too.

The manuals for LinuxCNC run above the 700 page range, so to keep 
reasonably up to date I kill a tree about every 2 years for a fresh 
copy. I do them duplex, on 24 lb & punch for a 3 ring binder.

But since we finally have a decent pdf reader in evince, I am trying to 
break me of reaching for a 10 pound binder that it may take me 15 
minutes to find what I want in it.  That is not productive use of ones 
remaining time.

> I buy paper by the 500 sheets!!  And you don't need to  know what the
> numbers (80 gsm etc) actually mean, though I do.  100 is when you
> really want something to look nice.  120 is thin card, 90 is what I
> used on all documents leaving the house for some years (because I was
> in business) and I now use 80 because I am skinflint in my old age. 
> 70, the once I ever bought it some years ago, caused my printer to jam
> up.
>
> Lisi


Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#170120

Doug wrote on 07/10/2016 10:22 PM:
>
> I've seen several places where this definition is shown, so it must be correct.
> If you Google
> for paper weight, there will be at least one site that mentions paper weight in
> pounds and
> also in grams / cm-squared, which may make sense to the Europeans reading this but
    that would be square-cm.
> not to me!
>
>

I'm with you!

Personally, I have never seen a sensible justification for 
switching from one arbitrary measurement system (foot, 
pound, quart) to another arbitrary measurement system 
(meter, gram, liter).

BTW: one inch now equals 2.54 cm *exactly*, in case you 
haven't been keeping up! (Used to be approx 2.54 cm.) This 
is what I mean by arbitrary. Don't like the conversion 
ratio? Then just change it!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#170164

On Thu 14 Jul 2016 at 11:21:25 (-0500), Dennis Wicks wrote:
> Doug wrote on 07/10/2016 10:22 PM:
> >I've seen several places where this definition is shown, so it must be correct.
> >If you Google
> >for paper weight, there will be at least one site that mentions paper weight in
> >pounds and
> >also in grams / cm-squared, which may make sense to the Europeans reading this but
>    that would be square-cm.
> >not to me!
> 
> I'm with you!
> 
> Personally, I have never seen a sensible justification for switching
> from one arbitrary measurement system (foot, pound, quart) to
> another arbitrary measurement system (meter, gram, liter).

Is that the International Foot or the US Survey Foot, the Avoirdupois
Pound or the Troy Pound, the Imperial Quart or the US Quart?

But you're just comparing the units here, not the system which also
includes how the units relate to one another. There's a multiplicity
of multiples to with any non-metric system, which we had to learn
at school. 12, 3, 220, 8 for distances, 16, 16, 14, 8, 20 for weight,
4, 2, 4, 2, 4 for volume. That's before you looked at areas, 4840, 640,
and volumes, 2219.36 cu in per bushel. No, we didn't have to learn
that last one.

> BTW: one inch now equals 2.54 cm *exactly*, in case you haven't been
> keeping up! (Used to be approx 2.54 cm.) This is what I mean by
> arbitrary. Don't like the conversion ratio? Then just change it!

The problem with measuring paper by weight is of course that the
amount weighed is never unambiguously specified, and varies
according to what sort of paper is being specified. That's why
I said you need to serve an apprenticeship in printing, so you
can tell whether the paper is bond, cover, Bristol or book,
amongst others... And you have to hope that your supplier uses the
normal basis weight, which is not actually fixed, only conventional.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#170165

Dennis writes:
> BTW: one inch now equals 2.54 cm *exactly*, in case you haven't been
> keeping up! (Used to be approx 2.54 cm.) This is what I mean by
> arbitrary. Don't like the conversion ratio?  Then just change it!

It wasn't a change in conversion ratio.  It was change in definition.
Originally US length measures were defined by a physical standard
derived from the British yard such that the inch worked out to close to
2.54cm.  In 1893 the inch was defined as 2.54cm and BIPM-supplied meter
and kilogram standards became the official US measurement standards.  It
took until 1930 for the Brits to catch up.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#170166

On Saturday 16 July 2016 04:48:11 John Hasler wrote:
> Dennis writes:
> > BTW: one inch now equals 2.54 cm *exactly*, in case you haven't been
> > keeping up! (Used to be approx 2.54 cm.) This is what I mean by
> > arbitrary. Don't like the conversion ratio?  Then just change it!
>
> It wasn't a change in conversion ratio.  It was change in definition.
> Originally US length measures were defined by a physical standard
> derived from the British yard such that the inch worked out to close to
> 2.54cm.  In 1893 the inch was defined as 2.54cm and BIPM-supplied meter
> and kilogram standards became the official US measurement standards.  It
> took until 1930 for the Brits to catch up.

Not quite accurate, though sufficiently jingoistic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inch

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#170168

On 2016-07-16, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday 16 July 2016 04:48:11 John Hasler wrote:
>> Dennis writes:
>> > BTW: one inch now equals 2.54 cm *exactly*, in case you haven't been
>> > keeping up! (Used to be approx 2.54 cm.) This is what I mean by
>> > arbitrary. Don't like the conversion ratio?  Then just change it!
>>
>> It wasn't a change in conversion ratio.  It was change in definition.
>> Originally US length measures were defined by a physical standard
>> derived from the British yard such that the inch worked out to close to
>> 2.54cm.  In 1893 the inch was defined as 2.54cm and BIPM-supplied meter
>> and kilogram standards became the official US measurement standards.  It
>> took until 1930 for the Brits to catch up.
>
> Not quite accurate, though sufficiently jingoistic.

Give 'em an inch ...

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inch
>
> Lisi
>
>


-- 
Même l’avenir n’est plus ce qu’il était. 
Paul Valéry  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#170169

Lisi writes:
> Not quite accurate...

An accurate summary, the point being that it was not a change in
conversion factor, it was a change in definition.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#170171

A brief official history of the metric system in the USA:
http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/metric/upload/1136a.pdf
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#170175

On 2016-07-16, John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote:
> Lisi writes:
>> Not quite accurate...
>
> An accurate summary, the point being that it was not a change in
> conversion factor, it was a change in definition.

She was putting her foot down, but it went into her mouth.

-- 
Même l’avenir n’est plus ce qu’il était. 
Paul Valéry  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#170194

On Saturday 16 July 2016 14:49:30 Curt wrote:
> On 2016-07-16, John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > Lisi writes:
> >> Not quite accurate...
> >
> > An accurate summary, the point being that it was not a change in
> > conversion factor, it was a change in definition.
>
> She was putting her foot down, but it went into her mouth.

Very witty, but also inaccurate.  My foot was not in my mouth.  The definition 
and the conversion factor both changed in 1959 when the yard was standardised 
in terms of the metre.  And, of course, redefined in 1960 and 1983 when the 
metre itself was redefined, since the yard is now defined in terms of the 
metre.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#170206

On 2016-07-16 13:49 +0000, Curt wrote:

> She was putting her foot down, but it went into her mouth.

Did she ? In any case, hearing someone from the US poke fun at
the UK for being late in updating their unit system "vaut son
pesant de cacahuètes", as people might say around these parts.
:-)

-- 
André Majorel <http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/>
bugs.debian.org, a spambot's best friend.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#170193

On Saturday 16 July 2016 13:21:35 John Hasler wrote:
> Lisi writes:
> > Not quite accurate...
>
> An accurate summary, the point being that it was not a change in
> conversion factor, it was a change in definition.

While we are quibbling, a) the date you gave was wrong and b) the change in 
definition simply didn't come until 1959 and it resulted in a very small 
change in conversion factor. 

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#170198

On Fri 15 Jul 2016 at 22:48:11 (-0500), John Hasler wrote:
> Dennis writes:
> > BTW: one inch now equals 2.54 cm *exactly*, in case you haven't been
> > keeping up! (Used to be approx 2.54 cm.) This is what I mean by
> > arbitrary. Don't like the conversion ratio?  Then just change it!
> 
> It wasn't a change in conversion ratio.  It was change in definition.
> Originally US length measures were defined by a physical standard
> derived from the British yard such that the inch worked out to close to
> 2.54cm.  In 1893 the inch was defined as 2.54cm

Close, but no ciger. The 1866-07-28 length of the US yard was
preserved at 3600÷3937 of the metre. What changed in 1893 was
the adoption of the International Standard Metre (21 and 27
were the ones they received) as the prototype.

The change to inch=2.54cm came much later (1959-07-01) and was
actually expressed as one yard = 0.9144 of the metre. The old foot,
the US Survey foot, is still used by the National Geodetic Survey
for the publication of heights. Some states still publish their
State Plane Coordinates in feet (provided to them by NGS in metres)
and are at liberty to use either type of foot.

> and BIPM-supplied meter
> and kilogram standards became the official US measurement standards.  It
> took until 1930 for the Brits to catch up.

Who was first is of little real interest. What's difficult to argue
against is that the Brits have pretty well gone metric with a few
exceptions like distances between towns, beer glasses, and the
freedom to sell milk in pints or litres. The Americans have not.
Even scientists convert their statements into customary units when
they commnicate with the public. And, of course, the most notorious
example of using the wrong units was the $125-million loss of the
Mars Climate Orbiter in 1989 because someone was using pounds-force
instead of Newtons.

At school in the 60s, we used the poundal instead of the
pound-force (on the rare occasions we used Imperial units).
Perhaps this was because the staff were unwilling to teach a
class of children to measure mass in slugs.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#170199

NIST does not agree with you.  As for recognizing the metric system and
making it legal for trade, the USA did that in 1866.  What it has not
done and what the metrification enthusiasts really want it to do is ban
the use of the customary system.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#170203

On Sat 16 Jul 2016 at 19:46:00 (-0500), John Hasler wrote:
> NIST does not agree with you.  As for recognizing the metric system and
> making it legal for trade, the USA did that in 1866.  What it has not
> done and what the metrification enthusiasts really want it to do is ban
> the use of the customary system.

It's usual to quote the parts of the post that you're referring to.
As you haven't, I'll just put them back in here.

I wrote:
> On Fri 15 Jul 2016 at 22:48:11 (-0500), John Hasler wrote:
> > Dennis writes:
> > > BTW: one inch now equals 2.54 cm *exactly*, in case you haven't been
> > > keeping up! (Used to be approx 2.54 cm.) This is what I mean by
> > > arbitrary. Don't like the conversion ratio?  Then just change it!
> >
> > It wasn't a change in conversion ratio.  It was change in definition.
> > Originally US length measures were defined by a physical standard
> > derived from the British yard such that the inch worked out to close to
> > 2.54cm.  In 1893 the inch was defined as 2.54cm
> 
> Close, but no ciger. The 1866-07-28 length of the US yard was
> preserved at 3600÷3937 of the metre. What changed in 1893 was
> the adoption of the International Standard Metre (21 and 27
> were the ones they received) as the prototype.

In 1893, the “Mendenhall Order” was published as Bulletin 26 of the
Coast and Geodetic Survey. It was republished as Appendix 3 of
“Weights and Measures Standards of the United States a brief history”
in Special Publication 447 of the National Bureau of Standards, which
is NIST's predecessor. It says “The practical effect upon our
customary weights and measures is, of course, nothing. The most
careful study of the relation of the yard and the metre has failed
thus far to show that the relation as defined by Congress in the act
of 1866 is in error.”

A footnote at the end of this paragraph says “NOTE---Reference to the
act of 1866 results in the establishment of the following:
                           Equations.

                              3600
                     1 yard = ----metre.
                              3937           ”

This contradicts the statement “In 1893 the inch was defined as 2.54cm”.

> The change to inch=2.54cm came much later (1959-07-01) and was
> actually expressed as one yard = 0.9144 of the metre. The old foot,
> the US Survey foot, is still used by the National Geodetic Survey
> for the publication of heights. Some states still publish their
> State Plane Coordinates in feet (provided to them by NGS in metres)
> and are at liberty to use either type of foot.

Again from Special Publication 447, §8 (page 20) says “When the
National Bureau of Standards began its work in 1901 the principal
units of weights and measures in the U. S. customary system were
defined as follows:

                              3600
                     1 yard = ----metre.
                              3937

                     1 pound = [...]
                     1 gallon = [...]
                     1 bushel = [...]

These definitions remained unchanged for 58 years, and the last two
are still the official values.
[...
...] and the United States entered into agreement, effective July 1, 1959,
whereby uniformity was established for use in the scientific and
technical fields. The equivalents 1 yard=0.9144meter (whence 1 inch
=25.4 millimeters) and [...] were adopted for each of these national
laboratories.”

Appendix 5 shows the change in length on 1959 to be about 2ppm, and
also states “Any data expressed in feet derived from and published as
a result of geodetic surveys within the United States will continue to
bear the following relationship as defined in 1893:

                             1200
                     1 foot=---- meter
                             3937

The foot unit defined by this equation shall be referred to as the US
Survey Foot and it shall continue to be used [...]”
until they readjust the survey networks, which they did in 1983 with
NAD83, superseding NAD27.

The survival of the US Survey Foot to the present time is evidenced
by http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/faq.shtml which says “NGS does NOT have an
"official" conversion factor. NGS works in meters ONLY. NGS only uses
feet to publish SPCs, and those are converted from meters using the
conversion factor as defined by the individual states who have
requested that we publish SPCs in feet.
The only other instance where NGS publishes linear values in feet is
for elevations, i.e., orthometric heights. All computations are still
done in meters, but for publication purposes we convert meters to
feet. That conversion is done using the U.S. Survey Foot conversion
factor. We publish elevations in meters to the nearest millimeter (3
decimal places) and in feet to hundredths of a foot (2 decimal
places). For elevations above 5,000 feet (1,524 meters), the
conversion factor will change the foot value by one in the second
place.”

If NIST does not agree with its own historical publications, could you
please post some references as to where they occur.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#169978 — Straying further OT, Re: off topic Question of the day..

On Sun 10 Jul 2016 at 21:20:39 (-0400), rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, July 10, 2016 08:33:37 PM David Wright wrote:
> > BTW I do find American paper weights about as obfuscated as anything.
> > I think you need to serve an apprenticeship in printing to have a clue.
> > There'a website http://okpaper.com/calculators/lbs-to-gsm that claims
> > to do the conversion. Type in 20 lbs and it spits out
> > GSM text 29.6
> > GSM cover 54.16
> > They're not seriously telling me that the standard US paper weight
> > (20lbs) comes out at those gsm values. 80gsm is standard, and if you
> > buy 70gsm at cheap stores, there's a fair chance it'll misfeed in the
> > printer. 60gsm comes in writing tablets and would be hopeless in any
> > machine. (I haven't a clue what "text" and "cover" mean.)
> > Of course, the fundamental problem with the American system is 20 lbs
> > of what? Yes, paper; but how much?
> 
> From a quick google search:
> 
> <quote>
> What does 20 lb paper mean? | Yahoo Answers
> https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid...
> Jun 4, 2008 - Best Answer: "Paper weight refers to the weight of a 500-sheet 
> ream of 17" x 22" paper. Each of these sheets is equivalent to four letter 
> size ...
> </quote>

Well, that figures. Putting 50lbs into okpaper produces 74gsm which
feels about right, and hand-cranking the numbers using 20lbs of
17" x 22" produces 75.2gsm. So you have to guess what size of sheet to
weigh according to what you think the type of paper might be.
And of course everybody knows that "20 lb. bond" is at other times
referred to as a "50 lb. text weight", whatever that might be.

Pure insanity, with not much enlightenmnt from
http://paperworks.com/about-paper-weights
and a spoonful of confusion from
http://www.paper-paper.com/weight.html
which introduces yet another unit called "point", and states
"The Values in the table [...] should not be used as specifications
because there are variances within the same basis weight due to other
characteristics of the papers. Similar weight papers may vary between
different paper manufacturers."

Have you heard the one about measuring lightbulb bases with two dimes
(10¢) and two cans of Campbell's condensed tomato soup? Oh, and a
penny (presumably the 1¢ kind). Seriously:
https://www.harringtonlights.com/Reference/identifying_screw_bases.htm

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#169959

Does the image cover the whole sheet of paper??

On Sunday 10 July 2016 05:09:34 Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Saturday 09 July 2016 21:51:52 rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 09, 2016 07:14:24 PM Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > I believe it is. Checking, yes. If that is the correct size, and its
> > > truly borderless when selected as "tabloid(borderless)", if the
> > > paper guidance can be improved, that would be ideal as when I
> > > trimmed it up and put it on a big sheet of light plywood this
> > > morning, I was trimming about 1/2" from all 4 edges on average.  And
> > > it was set for "A3(borderless)" at the time.  What size in our
> > > antiquated inch system is A3?
> >
> > A3 is what I consider a metric size (well, it is an ISO standard)--in
> > inches it is 11.7 x 16.5 in.
>
> Humm, wider but shorter.
>
> > If the only choices on that printer feed door are in the A series of
> > sizes, that may explain why the feed doesn't work to align the paper
> > properly.
>
> I was just trying to set the guides, such as they are, to fit the width
> of the paper, but had to tape then down to hold them as it takes only a
> gram or maybe two to move them, so they slide equal amounts in both
> directions the instant a sheet of paper touches them.  Useless design
> other than the auto center the cross coupling enforces if you tape it
> down so it cannot move.
>
> > I'd start by trimming one sheet of 11x17 paper to 11x16.5 and see if
> > that feeds better.
> >
> > I don't know how easy it is to buy A series paper in the US.
>
> It feeds the short edge in first, unlike the paper trays, both of which
> can be set for several different sizes, but they both feed long edge
> first. So once its been grabbed, there is still about 14.25 inches of
> paper hanging out in empty space with zero guidance because the curl of
> the paper as it passes over the top edge of this "door", lifts the paper
> a good 1/4" above and totally free of the guides. Most worthless design
> I have ever seen.  Paper centering and feed alignment are completely at
> the mercy of the human trying to insert the paper centered and square.
> And I do not believe that if a sheet of Lexan was added to extend the
> paper support for at least 8", and it was screwed to the plastic of the
> door, the stoppers incorporated into the plastic hinges would actually
> survive a sheet of tagboard laying on it, combined with the weight of the
> Lexan, too heavy.  A sheet of 28 lb copy paper is ok, but not a hand
> laying on it.
> Cheers, Gene Heskett

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#169966

On Sunday 10 July 2016 14:58:16 Lisi Reisz wrote:

> Does the image cover the whole sheet of paper??

I can make it pretty close to borderless with another 1 or 2 percentage 
points of size increase.

Its a logic flow diagram and to get the text in a logic box big enough to 
read, it occupies a minimum of 6 sheets of landscape 11x17.  Fairly 
complex signal flow.  The .hal file that generates it is around 640 
lines.  Taping it together and sticking it a about a third of a sheet of 
thin plywood to make it studyable is about a 1.5 hour job by the time 
the borders are cut away, and its adjusted so all the lines meet when 
the tape is applied takes 2 cups of coffee and several trips to a well 
worn diamond plate to keep the knife sharp.  The plate was 800 grit 25 
years ago, probably around 8000 grit equ now.

> On Sunday 10 July 2016 05:09:34 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Saturday 09 July 2016 21:51:52 rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 09, 2016 07:14:24 PM Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > I believe it is. Checking, yes. If that is the correct size, and
> > > > its truly borderless when selected as "tabloid(borderless)", if
> > > > the paper guidance can be improved, that would be ideal as when
> > > > I trimmed it up and put it on a big sheet of light plywood this
> > > > morning, I was trimming about 1/2" from all 4 edges on average. 
> > > > And it was set for "A3(borderless)" at the time.  What size in
> > > > our antiquated inch system is A3?
> > >
> > > A3 is what I consider a metric size (well, it is an ISO
> > > standard)--in inches it is 11.7 x 16.5 in.
> >
> > Humm, wider but shorter.
> >
> > > If the only choices on that printer feed door are in the A series
> > > of sizes, that may explain why the feed doesn't work to align the
> > > paper properly.
> >
> > I was just trying to set the guides, such as they are, to fit the
> > width of the paper, but had to tape then down to hold them as it
> > takes only a gram or maybe two to move them, so they slide equal
> > amounts in both directions the instant a sheet of paper touches
> > them.  Useless design other than the auto center the cross coupling
> > enforces if you tape it down so it cannot move.
> >
> > > I'd start by trimming one sheet of 11x17 paper to 11x16.5 and see
> > > if that feeds better.
> > >
> > > I don't know how easy it is to buy A series paper in the US.
> >
> > It feeds the short edge in first, unlike the paper trays, both of
> > which can be set for several different sizes, but they both feed
> > long edge first. So once its been grabbed, there is still about
> > 14.25 inches of paper hanging out in empty space with zero guidance
> > because the curl of the paper as it passes over the top edge of this
> > "door", lifts the paper a good 1/4" above and totally free of the
> > guides. Most worthless design I have ever seen.  Paper centering and
> > feed alignment are completely at the mercy of the human trying to
> > insert the paper centered and square. And I do not believe that if a
> > sheet of Lexan was added to extend the paper support for at least
> > 8", and it was screwed to the plastic of the door, the stoppers
> > incorporated into the plastic hinges would actually survive a sheet
> > of tagboard laying on it, combined with the weight of the Lexan, too
> > heavy.  A sheet of 28 lb copy paper is ok, but not a hand laying on
> > it.
> > Cheers, Gene Heskett


Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#169968

On Sunday 10 July 2016 23:21:44 Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 10 July 2016 14:58:16 Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > Does the image cover the whole sheet of paper??
>
> I can make it pretty close to borderless with another 1 or 2 percentage
> points of size increase.

I was wondering whether any of the feed problems are due to Te paper you are 
feeding, and what you told it to expect, are different.  Can't you set evince 
to expect American idiosyncrasies??

Lisi
>
> Its a logic flow diagram and to get the text in a logic box big enough to
> read, it occupies a minimum of 6 sheets of landscape 11x17.  Fairly
> complex signal flow.  The .hal file that generates it is around 640
> lines.  Taping it together and sticking it a about a third of a sheet of
> thin plywood to make it studyable is about a 1.5 hour job by the time
> the borders are cut away, and its adjusted so all the lines meet when
> the tape is applied takes 2 cups of coffee and several trips to a well
> worn diamond plate to keep the knife sharp.  The plate was 800 grit 25
> years ago, probably around 8000 grit equ now.
>
> > On Sunday 10 July 2016 05:09:34 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > On Saturday 09 July 2016 21:51:52 rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, July 09, 2016 07:14:24 PM Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > > I believe it is. Checking, yes. If that is the correct size, and
> > > > > its truly borderless when selected as "tabloid(borderless)", if
> > > > > the paper guidance can be improved, that would be ideal as when
> > > > > I trimmed it up and put it on a big sheet of light plywood this
> > > > > morning, I was trimming about 1/2" from all 4 edges on average.
> > > > > And it was set for "A3(borderless)" at the time.  What size in
> > > > > our antiquated inch system is A3?
> > > >
> > > > A3 is what I consider a metric size (well, it is an ISO
> > > > standard)--in inches it is 11.7 x 16.5 in.
> > >
> > > Humm, wider but shorter.
> > >
> > > > If the only choices on that printer feed door are in the A series
> > > > of sizes, that may explain why the feed doesn't work to align the
> > > > paper properly.
> > >
> > > I was just trying to set the guides, such as they are, to fit the
> > > width of the paper, but had to tape then down to hold them as it
> > > takes only a gram or maybe two to move them, so they slide equal
> > > amounts in both directions the instant a sheet of paper touches
> > > them.  Useless design other than the auto center the cross coupling
> > > enforces if you tape it down so it cannot move.
> > >
> > > > I'd start by trimming one sheet of 11x17 paper to 11x16.5 and see
> > > > if that feeds better.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know how easy it is to buy A series paper in the US.
> > >
> > > It feeds the short edge in first, unlike the paper trays, both of
> > > which can be set for several different sizes, but they both feed
> > > long edge first. So once its been grabbed, there is still about
> > > 14.25 inches of paper hanging out in empty space with zero guidance
> > > because the curl of the paper as it passes over the top edge of this
> > > "door", lifts the paper a good 1/4" above and totally free of the
> > > guides. Most worthless design I have ever seen.  Paper centering and
> > > feed alignment are completely at the mercy of the human trying to
> > > insert the paper centered and square. And I do not believe that if a
> > > sheet of Lexan was added to extend the paper support for at least
> > > 8", and it was screwed to the plastic of the door, the stoppers
> > > incorporated into the plastic hinges would actually survive a sheet
> > > of tagboard laying on it, combined with the weight of the Lexan, too
> > > heavy.  A sheet of 28 lb copy paper is ok, but not a hand laying on
> > > it.
> > > Cheers, Gene Heskett
>
> Cheers, Gene Heskett

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web