Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (
More info?)
Not to muddy the waters here, but some time ago I ask a friend who owned a
Sir Speedy printing help in understanding the various classifications of
papers and how they are measured. What follows is his attempt to answer it.
He describes the difference between bone, book and cover papers.
He refers to pound as "#."
------------------------------------------------------
We, as users and consumers, think of paper in terms of 8.5 x 11 inches. This
is natural.
However, paper weight is defined as the weight of 500 sheets of "parent
size". Herein lies the problem. The various kinds of paper have different
parent sizes. Only God and Ben Franklin know why.
Bond paper, a.k.a. copy paper has a parent size of 17 x 22 inches.
Book, a.k.a. text or offset has a parent size of 25 x38 inches.
Cover has a parent size of 20 x 26 inches
Example:
500 sheets of 20# bond (copy) paper that measures 17 x 22 weighs 20#.
500 sheets of 50# book (text) paper that measures 25 x 38 weighs 50#.
500 sheets of 40# cover stock that measures 20 x 26 weighs 40#.
Reduced to the same measurement, say 8.5 x 11, both 20# bond and 50# book
(text) papers weigh nearly the same. Calculating the square inches of the
parent sizes bears this out.
Thus, you may see a ream of 500 sheets of 8.5 x 11 marked 20/50 #. Some
better resume paper is marked 24/60#. Obviously, they are saying, "This
paper weight is equivalent to 24# bond or 60# text.
The paper companies provide tables of "equivalent weights" for us to use.
E.g. 28# bond is equivalent to 70# book or 40# cover.
40# book or 16# bond is so light that only use is for bulk mailing where
weight saves postage.
40# cover used to be very rare until computer printers and color copiers
couldn't handle the stiff regular covers, so the lighter weight ones were
introduced.
--
Dave C.
c9ar9dar9elli@9c4.n9et
Remove the five 9's (leave the 4) for email.
"Pixmaker" <pixmaker@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:edbdv09gnsl4hsltf4uj4271puhdrvuik6@4ax.com...
> My answer was intended to clarify. . . explain. . . teach.
>
> Maybe you're happy with grams per square meter. That's nice. . .and
> accurate. There's much to be said for that type of standardization. It
> surely makes comparisons easy.
>
> Others will gladly use the notation gm/m² and will understand
> perfectly well what each means. The two expressions are equivalent in
> most technical and scientific circles and connote area rather than a
> particular format. Since we're talking weight, who cares what the size
> is. . . it could be a perforator roll as long as its area totals one
> square meter. That's what makes the g/m² so nice and absolute.
>
> The printing industry uses standards based on the English system of
> measurement and gets along rather well with it. In this case, the
> weight is derived from sheets of paper of a particular size. (I guess
> the guys in the bond paper factory didn't talk to the guys in the
> offset stock plant). <G> I suggest that, if one wishes to jump into
> any industry, it might be really neat to understand the terminology or
> jargon of that industry. When in Rome . . .
>
> And it really helps when you're trying to communicate with someone who
> works in that particular industry. Absolute standardization might be a
> noble objective but it's very difficult to change traditional ways.
>
> As an example, despite the pressure to "go metric", most everyday
> things are still measured in inches and feet and donuts are still sold
> by the dozen. Now, if you want to talk about hot dog rolls, that's an
> entirely different measurement system!
>
> Whatever floats your boat.
>
> Pixmaker in FLL
> ==========================
> It's not the heat, it's the humidity!
> ==========================
> (...Think the humidity's bad?
> You should watch us vote!)
AnJd.160$eH5.118@fe48.usenetserver.com...
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram