On 13/02/2017 08:57, Andy Bennet wrote:


There's a hole in my bucket dear birdbrain, dear birdbrain. The OP was
complaining about the variable thickness of 80gsm paper which suggests
the density of the sheets - and hence the thickness - is variable.

It does vary, for example, some paper has a coating on it to stop ink
wicking along the fibres and that is denser than the paper base.

Then the actual base can vary with the type of fibres used.

On 13/02/17 08:04, Tim Lamb wrote:
I had an issue with inkjet printing

Me too. I bought a laser.


--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 13/02/17 08:04, Tim Lamb wrote:
I had an issue with inkjet printing

Me too. I bought a laser.

My family like nice photos:-)

--
Tim Lamb

En el artículo , Tim Lamb
escribió:

My family like nice photos:-)

Asda do 100 6x4" prints on glossy photo card for ukp7.50, and the
quality is excellent. At that price, why fart around with inkjets that
cost a fortune to run and clog up at the drop of a hat?

Ounce for ounce, inkjet ink is more expensive than gold.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:32:32 +0000, dave wrote:

Is 80 gms printer paper getting thinner - or am I just imagining it!
Certainly getting more expensive

A printer, who buys paper by the pallet, told me with paper made in
Finland, every pallet is exactly the same height, whereas paper made
in China, the pallets vary in height by up to 1cm, which he told me as
an illustration that the Finns are more consistent in their
papermaking so maybe the place of manufacture of your 80gms needs to
be considered as well.

On Monday, 13 February 2017 01:28:21 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 01:19:55 -0000, Judith wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 22:50:37 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:32:32 -0000, dave wrote:

Is 80 gms printer paper getting thinner - or am I just imagining it!
Certainly getting more expensive

0.1mm per sheet - a good way to count it is to use a micrometer.

Why would you actually want to count it?

To print 200 sheets of something. Despite this being the 21st century, printers are useless at counting.

Why not use the computer to count. ?
It can count individual pages too and put that number on the paper.

They tend to forget where they got up to when the cartridge runs out etc.

What has that got to do with it ?

On Monday, 13 February 2017 16:01:54 UTC, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Tim Lamb
escribió:

My family like nice photos:-)

Asda do 100 6x4" prints on glossy photo card for ukp7.50, and the
quality is excellent. At that price, why fart around with inkjets that
cost a fortune to run and clog up at the drop of a hat?

Because inkjets tend to be better quality for the home user.
And when you go to poster size injets are cheaper to buy.


Ounce for ounce, inkjet ink is more expensive than gold.

So is a lot of things and lasers aren't cheap for colour either.




--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 01:28:12 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 01:19:55 -0000, Judith wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 22:50:37 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:32:32 -0000, dave wrote:

Is 80 gms printer paper getting thinner - or am I just imagining it!
Certainly getting more expensive

0.1mm per sheet - a good way to count it is to use a micrometer.

Why would you actually want to count it?

To print 200 sheets of something. Despite this being the 21st century, printers are useless at counting. They tend to forget where they got up to when the cartridge runs out etc.


And ....... have you ever seen anyone do that?

What do they do : have a micrometer on a chain next to the printer?

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 07:51:37 -0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 22:55:18 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 22:52:01 -0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 16:54:35 +0000, Andy Bennet
wrote:

On 12/02/2017 13:32, dave wrote:
Is 80 gms printer paper getting thinner - or am I just imagining it!
Certainly getting more expensive


I think they are adding a lot of depleted uranium to the paper now to
get rid of it.

chuckle
I know a lot of paper these days fluoresces under UV light, but that's
not from its uranium content! (They actually add fluorescent dyes to
the mix to make it appear extra white,

Wouldn't that make it extra purple?

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_brightener

Most 'white' systems absorb very slightly more light at the blue end
of the spectrum than at the red end. This gives them a very slightly
yellow cast, but we're used to it and don't normally notice until it
gets significant.

Isn't white subjective? Our eyes (and cameras) have auto white balance. Who is to say what real white is?

The optical brighteners absorb in the UV and
fluoresce in the blue, so enhancing the apparent reflectivity at that
end of the spectrum, offsetting the yellow cast and making the paper
or fabric look extra white. But if you use too much, or indeed expose
the stuff to a stronger UV source than normal daylight, then yes it
would and does make them look a bit purple.

Yes, I was thinking of white shellsuits in UV light at a fairground.

Uranium fluoresces in the yellow.

And does something else far more harmful!

in much the same way as they
add them to detergents to make your whites whiter, and fluoresce under
'black light' i.e. UV illumination in night clubs etc)). Besides,
uranium salts are yellow, which isn't what paper mfrs want.


--
A penny saved is ridiculous.

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:18:59 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Monday, 13 February 2017 01:28:21 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 01:19:55 -0000, Judith wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 22:50:37 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:32:32 -0000, dave wrote:

Is 80 gms printer paper getting thinner - or am I just imagining it!
Certainly getting more expensive

0.1mm per sheet - a good way to count it is to use a micrometer.

Why would you actually want to count it?

To print 200 sheets of something. Despite this being the 21st century, printers are useless at counting.

Why not use the computer to count. ?
It can count individual pages too and put that number on the paper.

They tend to forget where they got up to when the cartridge runs out etc.

What has that got to do with it ?

Because I tell it to print 200 sheets, and the ink runs out around 100, then it doesn't know how many it's done!

--
She was as easy as the Daily Star crossword.

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:57:49 -0000, Andy Bennet wrote:

On 12/02/2017 22:50, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:32:32 -0000, dave wrote:

Is 80 gms printer paper getting thinner - or am I just imagining it!
Certainly getting more expensive

0.1mm per sheet - a good way to count it is to use a micrometer.

There's a hole in my bucket dear birdbrain, dear birdbrain. The OP was
complaining about the variable thickness of 80gsm paper which suggests
the density of the sheets - and hence the thickness - is variable.

Yet a ream and a box of 5 reams has always looked the same to me.

A better way to 'count' sheets would be to weigh them. Each A4 sheet
occupies an area of 0.06237m2 (297 x 210mm). Therefore 16.0333493666827
sheets per m2. Each sheet must always weigh 0.200416867083534 grams
regardless of thickness (otherwise it is not 80gsm paper).

You'd need a damn sensitive set of scales, not a 50p micrometer.

--
Any god who requires worship is not worth being worshipped.

On Monday, 13 February 2017 17:20:12 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:48:43 -0000, Judith wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 01:28:12 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 01:19:55 -0000, Judith wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 22:50:37 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:32:32 -0000, dave wrote:

Is 80 gms printer paper getting thinner - or am I just imagining it!
Certainly getting more expensive

0.1mm per sheet - a good way to count it is to use a micrometer.

Why would you actually want to count it?

To print 200 sheets of something. Despite this being the 21st century, printers are useless at counting. They tend to forget where they got up to when the cartridge runs out etc.

And ....... have you ever seen anyone do that?

Only myself.

At least that makes sense. o one else would use that method to count sheets of paper.



What do they do : have a micrometer on a chain next to the printer?

Why would I chain it up? It's in a drawer of miscellaneous tools nearby.

Like an angle grinder in case you want to cut the sheets up into A5 or smaller.
An SDS drill as a hole punch.

On Monday, 13 February 2017 17:27:28 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:


Isn't white subjective? Our eyes (and cameras) have auto white balance. Who is to say what real white is?

Harry.

On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 10:29:23 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Monday, 13 February 2017 17:20:12 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:48:43 -0000, Judith wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 01:28:12 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 01:19:55 -0000, Judith wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 22:50:37 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:32:32 -0000, dave wrote:

Is 80 gms printer paper getting thinner - or am I just imagining it!
Certainly getting more expensive

0.1mm per sheet - a good way to count it is to use a micrometer.

Why would you actually want to count it?

To print 200 sheets of something. Despite this being the 21st century, printers are useless at counting. They tend to forget where they got up to when the cartridge runs out etc.

And ....... have you ever seen anyone do that?

Only myself.

At least that makes sense. o one else would use that method to count sheets of paper.

Far quicker than actually counting them.

What do they do : have a micrometer on a chain next to the printer?

Why would I chain it up? It's in a drawer of miscellaneous tools nearby.

Like an angle grinder in case you want to cut the sheets up into A5 or smaller.
An SDS drill as a hole punch.

Don't be silly.

--
A can of diet coke floats in water, but a can of regular coke sinks.

On Tuesday, 14 February 2017 18:12:22 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 10:29:23 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Monday, 13 February 2017 17:20:12 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:48:43 -0000, Judith wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 01:28:12 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 01:19:55 -0000, Judith wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 22:50:37 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:32:32 -0000, dave wrote:

Is 80 gms printer paper getting thinner - or am I just imagining it!
Certainly getting more expensive

0.1mm per sheet - a good way to count it is to use a micrometer.

Why would you actually want to count it?

To print 200 sheets of something. Despite this being the 21st century, printers are useless at counting. They tend to forget where they got up to when the cartridge runs out etc.

And ....... have you ever seen anyone do that?

Only myself.

At least that makes sense. o one else would use that method to count sheets of paper.

Far quicker than actually counting them.

yeah sure it is. Why donlt they use that method in banks then to count notes in ATMs ?


What do they do : have a micrometer on a chain next to the printer?

Why would I chain it up? It's in a drawer of miscellaneous tools nearby.

Like an angle grinder in case you want to cut the sheets up into A5 or smaller.
An SDS drill as a hole punch.

Don't be silly.

I was emulating you or should that be simulating, now I'll just head butt the doorframe for authentisity.


--
A can of diet coke floats in water, but a can of regular coke sinks.

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 12:18:45 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 14 February 2017 18:12:22 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 10:29:23 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Monday, 13 February 2017 17:20:12 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:48:43 -0000, Judith wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 01:28:12 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 01:19:55 -0000, Judith wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 22:50:37 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:32:32 -0000, dave wrote:

Is 80 gms printer paper getting thinner - or am I just imagining it!
Certainly getting more expensive

0.1mm per sheet - a good way to count it is to use a micrometer.

Why would you actually want to count it?

To print 200 sheets of something. Despite this being the 21st century, printers are useless at counting. They tend to forget where they got up to when the cartridge runs out etc.

And ....... have you ever seen anyone do that?

Only myself.

At least that makes sense. o one else would use that method to count sheets of paper.

Far quicker than actually counting them.

yeah sure it is. Why donlt they use that method in banks then to count notes in ATMs ?

Because they need accuracy. I only need *approximately* 200 sheets.

What do they do : have a micrometer on a chain next to the printer?

Why would I chain it up? It's in a drawer of miscellaneous tools nearby.

Like an angle grinder in case you want to cut the sheets up into A5 or smaller.
An SDS drill as a hole punch.

Don't be silly.

I was emulating you or should that be simulating, now I'll just head butt the doorframe for authentisity.

Why do you believe a micrometer is overkill?

--
Balderdash (n.), a rapidly receding hairline.

On Wednesday, 15 February 2017 22:33:49 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 12:18:45 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 14 February 2017 18:12:22 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 10:29:23 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Monday, 13 February 2017 17:20:12 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:48:43 -0000, Judith wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 01:28:12 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 01:19:55 -0000, Judith wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 22:50:37 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:32:32 -0000, dave wrote:

Is 80 gms printer paper getting thinner - or am I just imagining it!
Certainly getting more expensive

0.1mm per sheet - a good way to count it is to use a micrometer.

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 10:06:24 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 15 February 2017 22:33:49 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 12:18:45 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 14 February 2017 18:12:22 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 10:29:23 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Monday, 13 February 2017 17:20:12 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:48:43 -0000, Judith wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 01:28:12 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 01:19:55 -0000, Judith wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 22:50:37 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:32:32 -0000, dave wrote:

Is 80 gms printer paper getting thinner - or am I just imagining it!
Certainly getting more expensive

0.1mm per sheet - a good way to count it is to use a micrometer.

Why would you actually want to count it?

To print 200 sheets of something. Despite this being the 21st century, printers are useless at counting. They tend to forget where they got up to when the cartridge runs out etc.

And ....... have you ever seen anyone do that?

Only myself.

At least that makes sense. o one else would use that method to count sheets of paper.

Far quicker than actually counting them.

yeah sure it is. Why donlt they use that method in banks then to count notes in ATMs ?

Because they need accuracy. I only need *approximately* 200 sheets.

So why count them at all , why not just guess.

Because I'd be out by a huge margin.

What do they do : have a micrometer on a chain next to the printer?

Why would I chain it up? It's in a drawer of miscellaneous tools nearby.

Like an angle grinder in case you want to cut the sheets up into A5 or smaller.
An SDS drill as a hole punch.

Don't be silly.

I was emulating you or should that be simulating, now I'll just head butt the doorframe for authentisity.

Why do you believe a micrometer is overkill?

Because it is and they tend to only be for small measurements the jaws of my micrometer are just 50mm apart maxium so I can't get a ream of paper in there

I've got a dirt cheap micrometer (about a quid), and it measures 0.05mm to 15cm.

Your 50mm = 500 sheets = 1 ream exactly, so that's fine.

these were £60 a relatively cheap pair,

You paid 60 times what I did!!

a vernier caliper would be better but still overkill of course that depends on how much you spend on it. I've a cheap £20 one I tried measuring a ream of paper I measured it as anyting from about 52.5cm to 53.7 cm depending how firmly the wad of paper was squeezed, I put a ream of paper in the laser printer every so often I've carried a box of 5 reams up from the store so I know what a ream feels like and I could just as easily use a standard ruler to do it and get similar results and for a fractionn of the cost.

--
It's called "Windows XP" because its full name, "The Repair Shop and Help-Desk Full Employment Act of 2006", won't fit on the box.

On Friday, 17 February 2017 19:24:10 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 10:06:24 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 15 February 2017 22:33:49 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 12:18:45 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 14 February 2017 18:12:22 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 10:29:23 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Monday, 13 February 2017 17:20:12 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:48:43 -0000, Judith wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 01:28:12 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 01:19:55 -0000, Judith wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 22:50:37 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:32:32 -0000, dave wrote:

Is 80 gms printer paper getting thinner - or am I just imagining it!
Certainly getting more expensive

0.1mm per sheet - a good way to count it is to use a micrometer.

Why would you actually want to count it?

To print 200 sheets of something. Despite this being the 21st century, printers are useless at counting. They tend to forget where they got up to when the cartridge runs out etc.

And ....... have you ever seen anyone do that?

Only myself.

At least that makes sense. o one else would use that method to count sheets of paper.

Far quicker than actually counting them.

yeah sure it is. Why donlt they use that method in banks then to count notes in ATMs ?

Because they need accuracy. I only need *approximately* 200 sheets.

So why count them at all , why not just guess.

Because I'd be out by a huge margin.

I can understand that what with you head butting things because you don't know how high they are.



Why do you believe a micrometer is overkill?

Because it is and they tend to only be for small measurements the jaws of my micrometer are just 50mm apart maxium so I can't get a ream of paper in there

I've got a dirt cheap micrometer (about a quid), and it measures 0.05mm to 15cm.

So why not use that.


Your 50mm = 500 sheets = 1 ream exactly, so that's fine.

except it measures 54cm and there's a few pages short

So is 8% accuracy OK ?
Not sure how accuratly you need to count out 200 pages
is +/- 16 pages OK


these were £60 a relatively cheap pair,

You paid 60 times what I did!!

Yes we needed an accurate one I think ours is 0.005.


a vernier caliper would be better but still overkill of course that depends on how much you spend on it. I've a cheap £20 one I tried measuring a ream of paper I measured it as anyting from about 52.5cm to 53.7 cm depending how firmly the wad of paper was squeezed, I put a ream of paper in the laser printer every so often I've carried a box of 5 reams up from the store so I know what a ream feels like and I could just as easily use a standard ruler to do it and get similar results and for a fractionn of the cost.

It's warmer today and the same ream of paper measure 54cm.

Do you counting measurement allow for gaps between pages ?

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 10:34:42 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Friday, 17 February 2017 19:24:10 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 10:06:24 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 15 February 2017 22:33:49 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 12:18:45 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 14 February 2017 18:12:22 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 10:29:23 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Monday, 13 February 2017 17:20:12 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:48:43 -0000, Judith wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 01:28:12 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 01:19:55 -0000, Judith wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 22:50:37 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:32:32 -0000, dave wrote:

Is 80 gms printer paper getting thinner - or am I just imagining it!
Certainly getting more expensive

0.1mm per sheet - a good way to count it is to use a micrometer.

Why would you actually want to count it?

To print 200 sheets of something. Despite this being the 21st century, printers are useless at counting. They tend to forget where they got up to when the cartridge runs out etc.

And ....... have you ever seen anyone do that?

Only myself.

At least that makes sense. o one else would use that method to count sheets of paper.

Far quicker than actually counting them.

yeah sure it is. Why donlt they use that method in banks then to count notes in ATMs ?

Because they need accuracy. I only need *approximately* 200 sheets.

So why count them at all , why not just guess.

Because I'd be out by a huge margin.

I can understand that what with you head butting things because you don't know how high they are.

So you can pick up a lump of paper and say "there are about 150 sheets here"?

Why do you believe a micrometer is overkill?

Because it is and they tend to only be for small measurements the jaws of my micrometer are just 50mm apart maxium so I can't get a ream of paper in there

I've got a dirt cheap micrometer (about a quid), and it measures 0.05mm to 15cm.

So why not use that.

I do.

Your 50mm = 500 sheets = 1 ream exactly, so that's fine.

except it measures 54cm and there's a few pages short

54cm?!

So is 8% accuracy OK ?

Where are you getting 8% from?

Not sure how accuratly you need to count out 200 pages
is +/- 16 pages OK

Yes.

these were £60 a relatively cheap pair,

You paid 60 times what I did!!

Yes we needed an accurate one I think ours is 0.005.

Fair enough.

a vernier caliper would be better but still overkill of course that depends on how much you spend on it. I've a cheap £20 one I tried measuring a ream of paper I measured it as anyting from about 52.5cm to 53.7 cm depending how firmly the wad of paper was squeezed, I put a ream of paper in the laser printer every so often I've carried a box of 5 reams up from the store so I know what a ream feels like and I could just as easily use a standard ruler to do it and get similar results and for a fractionn of the cost.

It's warmer today and the same ream of paper measure 54cm.

Do you counting measurement allow for gaps between pages ?

I only needed to know roughly.

--
I was explaining to my wife last night that when you die you get reincarnated but must come back as a different creature. She said I would like to come back as a cow. I said you're obviously not listening.

On Thursday, 23 February 2017 01:15:53 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 10:34:42 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:


So why count them at all , why not just guess.

Because I'd be out by a huge margin.

I can understand that what with you head butting things because you don't know how high they are.

So you can pick up a lump of paper and say "there are about 150 sheets here"?

I can do that without a micrometer.
Why not gove them a new ream and say there;s about 200 sheets there, or just take about 75% from the pack and say there;s about 150 sheets.
Would we remain in the EU if you didn;lt guess right, what disaster would happen if you gave someone 140 sheets rather than 150 ?



Your 50mm = 500 sheets = 1 ream exactly, so that's fine.

except it measures 54cm and there's a few pages short

54cm?!

sorry meant 54mm
try measuring a ream of paper.


So is 8% accuracy OK ?

Where are you getting 8% from?

4mm is about 8% of 50mm



Not sure how accuratly you need to count out 200 pages
is +/- 16 pages OK

Yes.

So how accurate do you need to be in selection 150 sheets ..




It's warmer today and the same ream of paper measure 54cm.

Do you counting measurement allow for gaps between pages ?

I only needed to know roughly.

That's what I would have thought I doubt you're asked to supply 150 sheets to the ISS where handing them 160 sheets might have an effect on the overall payload.

I usually put one or two reams into a printer if two reams won't fit I just grab a some more of the second ream and add them until the tray is almost full.
If anyone comes to me they usaully say have you got an A4 paper (sometimes A3)
they rarely ask me for a specific number unless perhaps one sheet.
Maybe after artical 50 we'll need to account for every sheet and perhaps peole will come to me asking for 150 sheets of A4 rather than just asking for a pack or so and I point them to where it's stored.

On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 10:40:15 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 23 February 2017 01:15:53 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 10:34:42 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

So why count them at all , why not just guess.

Because I'd be out by a huge margin.

I can understand that what with you head butting things because you don't know how high they are.

So you can pick up a lump of paper and say "there are about 150 sheets here"?

I can do that without a micrometer.
Why not gove them a new ream and say there;s about 200 sheets there, or just take about 75% from the pack and say there;s about 150 sheets.
Would we remain in the EU if you didn;lt guess right, what disaster would happen if you gave someone 140 sheets rather than 150 ?

A micrometer is easier.

Your 50mm = 500 sheets = 1 ream exactly, so that's fine.

except it measures 54cm and there's a few pages short

54cm?!

sorry meant 54mm
try measuring a ream of paper.

My reams are 50mm. Depends on the gsm and quality I guess.

So is 8% accuracy OK ?

Where are you getting 8% from?

4mm is about 8% of 50mm

Not sure how accuratly you need to count out 200 pages
is +/- 16 pages OK

Yes.

So how accurate do you need to be in selection 150 sheets ..

140-160 would be fine.

It's warmer today and the same ream of paper measure 54cm.

Do you counting measurement allow for gaps between pages ?

I only needed to know roughly.

That's what I would have thought I doubt you're asked to supply 150 sheets to the ISS where handing them 160 sheets might have an effect on the overall payload.

They use paper up there?!

--
An Ohio teen has pleaded innocent to stealing his mother's credit card to pay for a friend's breast enlargement surgery.
Police say it's lucky they caught the guy quickly; otherwise, it may have turned into a bigger bust.

On Sunday, 26 February 2017 01:11:22 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 10:40:15 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 23 February 2017 01:15:53 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 10:34:42 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

So why count them at all , why not just guess.

Because I'd be out by a huge margin.

I can understand that what with you head butting things because you don't know how high they are.

So you can pick up a lump of paper and say "there are about 150 sheets here"?

I can do that without a micrometer.
Why not gove them a new ream and say there;s about 200 sheets there, or just take about 75% from the pack and say there;s about 150 sheets.
Would we remain in the EU if you didn;lt guess right, what disaster would happen if you gave someone 140 sheets rather than 150 ?

A micrometer is easier.

Your 50mm = 500 sheets = 1 ream exactly, so that's fine.

except it measures 54cm and there's a few pages short

54cm?!

sorry meant 54mm
try measuring a ream of paper.

My reams are 50mm. Depends on the gsm and quality I guess.

So not much point in using sich a measurement for counting sheets then.
But if someone a stack of paper measuring Xmm your method would work.


So is 8% accuracy OK ?

Where are you getting 8% from?

4mm is about 8% of 50mm

Not sure how accuratly you need to count out 200 pages
is +/- 16 pages OK

Yes.

So how accurate do you need to be in selection 150 sheets ..

140-160 would be fine.

So why worry enough to use a micrometer ?

On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 11:04:50 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Sunday, 26 February 2017 01:11:22 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 10:40:15 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 23 February 2017 01:15:53 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 10:34:42 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

So why count them at all , why not just guess.

Because I'd be out by a huge margin.

I can understand that what with you head butting things because you don't know how high they are.

So you can pick up a lump of paper and say "there are about 150 sheets here"?

I can do that without a micrometer.
Why not gove them a new ream and say there;s about 200 sheets there, or just take about 75% from the pack and say there;s about 150 sheets.
Would we remain in the EU if you didn;lt guess right, what disaster would happen if you gave someone 140 sheets rather than 150 ?

A micrometer is easier.

Your 50mm = 500 sheets = 1 ream exactly, so that's fine.

except it measures 54cm and there's a few pages short

54cm?!

sorry meant 54mm
try measuring a ream of paper.

My reams are 50mm. Depends on the gsm and quality I guess.

So not much point in using sich a measurement for counting sheets then.
But if someone a stack of paper measuring Xmm your method would work.

My reams are always 50mm. So the micrometer is a quite accurate way of quickly counting.

So is 8% accuracy OK ?

Where are you getting 8% from?

4mm is about 8% of 50mm

Not sure how accuratly you need to count out 200 pages
is +/- 16 pages OK

Yes.

So how accurate do you need to be in selection 150 sheets ..

140-160 would be fine.

So why worry enough to use a micrometer ?

It's for quickness, not accuracy. How else would you count 150 sheets?

--
I went to buy some camoflage trousers the other day but I couldn't find any.

On Wednesday, 1 March 2017 19:56:09 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 11:04:50 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Sunday, 26 February 2017 01:11:22 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 10:40:15 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 23 February 2017 01:15:53 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 10:34:42 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

So why count them at all , why not just guess.

Because I'd be out by a huge margin.

I can understand that what with you head butting things because you don't know how high they are.

So you can pick up a lump of paper and say "there are about 150 sheets here"?

I can do that without a micrometer.
Why not gove them a new ream and say there;s about 200 sheets there, or just take about 75% from the pack and say there;s about 150 sheets.
Would we remain in the EU if you didn;lt guess right, what disaster would happen if you gave someone 140 sheets rather than 150 ?

A micrometer is easier.

Your 50mm = 500 sheets = 1 ream exactly, so that's fine.

except it measures 54cm and there's a few pages short

54cm?!

sorry meant 54mm
try measuring a ream of paper.

My reams are 50mm. Depends on the gsm and quality I guess.

So not much point in using sich a measurement for counting sheets then.
But if someone a stack of paper measuring Xmm your method would work.

My reams are always 50mm.

yeah sure so there;s no gaps between the pages.

So the micrometer is a quite accurate way of quickly counting.

well if you must have a way of accuratly counting, strange that this method isnl;t used for counting cash, yuo'd have though if it's that accurate.



So is 8% accuracy OK ?

Where are you getting 8% from?

4mm is about 8% of 50mm

Not sure how accuratly you need to count out 200 pages
is +/- 16 pages OK

Yes.

So how accurate do you need to be in selection 150 sheets ..

140-160 would be fine.

So why worry enough to use a micrometer ?

It's for quickness, not accuracy. How else would you count 150 sheets?

I wouldn't.

On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 12:53:47 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 1 March 2017 19:56:09 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 11:04:50 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Sunday, 26 February 2017 01:11:22 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 10:40:15 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 23 February 2017 01:15:53 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 10:34:42 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

So why count them at all , why not just guess.

Because I'd be out by a huge margin.

I can understand that what with you head butting things because you don't know how high they are.

So you can pick up a lump of paper and say "there are about 150 sheets here"?

I can do that without a micrometer.
Why not gove them a new ream and say there;s about 200 sheets there, or just take about 75% from the pack and say there;s about 150 sheets.
Would we remain in the EU if you didn;lt guess right, what disaster would happen if you gave someone 140 sheets rather than 150 ?

A micrometer is easier.

Your 50mm = 500 sheets = 1 ream exactly, so that's fine.

except it measures 54cm and there's a few pages short

54cm?!

sorry meant 54mm
try measuring a ream of paper.

My reams are 50mm. Depends on the gsm and quality I guess.

So not much point in using sich a measurement for counting sheets then.
But if someone a stack of paper measuring Xmm your method would work.

My reams are always 50mm.

yeah sure so there;s no gaps between the pages.

Why would there be?

So the micrometer is a quite accurate way of quickly counting.

well if you must have a way of accuratly counting, strange that this method isnl;t used for counting cash, yuo'd have though if it's that accurate.

Counting cash must be exact, not even one out. I never said I needed that.

So is 8% accuracy OK ?

Where are you getting 8% from?

4mm is about 8% of 50mm

Not sure how accuratly you need to count out 200 pages
is +/- 16 pages OK

Yes.

So how accurate do you need to be in selection 150 sheets ..

140-160 would be fine.

So why worry enough to use a micrometer ?

It's for quickness, not accuracy. How else would you count 150 sheets?

I wouldn't.

There must be a reason you can think of for needing to count 150 sheets of paper. Use your imagination.

--
Old Lady - "What is that funny looking thing over there?"
Zoo Keeper - "That's a kangaroo, madam. a native of Australia,"
Old Lady - "Oh, my god! My sister married one of them!"

On Saturday, 4 March 2017 23:08:38 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 12:53:47 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 1 March 2017 19:56:09 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 11:04:50 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Sunday, 26 February 2017 01:11:22 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 10:40:15 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 23 February 2017 01:15:53 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 10:34:42 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

So why count them at all , why not just guess.

Because I'd be out by a huge margin.

I can understand that what with you head butting things because you don't know how high they are.

So you can pick up a lump of paper and say "there are about 150 sheets here"?

I can do that without a micrometer.
Why not gove them a new ream and say there;s about 200 sheets there, or just take about 75% from the pack and say there;s about 150 sheets.
Would we remain in the EU if you didn;lt guess right, what disaster would happen if you gave someone 140 sheets rather than 150 ?

A micrometer is easier.

Your 50mm = 500 sheets = 1 ream exactly, so that's fine.

except it measures 54cm and there's a few pages short

54cm?!

sorry meant 54mm
try measuring a ream of paper.

My reams are 50mm. Depends on the gsm and quality I guess.

So not much point in using sich a measurement for counting sheets then.
But if someone a stack of paper measuring Xmm your method would work.

My reams are always 50mm.

yeah sure so there;s no gaps between the pages.

Why would there be?

because otherwise the paper would stick together and you wouldn't be able to separate the sheets.




There must be a reason you can think of for needing to count 150 sheets of paper. Use your imagination.

Sorry can't think of any reason why you'd need to count out 150 sheets of paper from a ream. If there was enough of a reason perhaps they'd sell then in packs of 150.

On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 11:43:59 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Saturday, 4 March 2017 23:08:38 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 12:53:47 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 1 March 2017 19:56:09 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 11:04:50 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Sunday, 26 February 2017 01:11:22 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 10:40:15 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 23 February 2017 01:15:53 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 10:34:42 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

So why count them at all , why not just guess.

Because I'd be out by a huge margin.

I can understand that what with you head butting things because you don't know how high they are.

So you can pick up a lump of paper and say "there are about 150 sheets here"?

I can do that without a micrometer.
Why not gove them a new ream and say there;s about 200 sheets there, or just take about 75% from the pack and say there;s about 150 sheets.
Would we remain in the EU if you didn;lt guess right, what disaster would happen if you gave someone 140 sheets rather than 150 ?

A micrometer is easier.

Your 50mm = 500 sheets = 1 ream exactly, so that's fine.

except it measures 54cm and there's a few pages short

54cm?!

sorry meant 54mm
try measuring a ream of paper.

My reams are 50mm. Depends on the gsm and quality I guess.

So not much point in using sich a measurement for counting sheets then.
But if someone a stack of paper measuring Xmm your method would work.

My reams are always 50mm.

yeah sure so there;s no gaps between the pages.

Why would there be?

because otherwise the paper would stick together and you wouldn't be able to separate the sheets.

That's why printers get paper jams.

There must be a reason you can think of for needing to count 150 sheets of paper. Use your imagination.

Sorry can't think of any reason why you'd need to count out 150 sheets of paper from a ream. If there was enough of a reason perhaps they'd sell then in packs of 150.

But sometimes you might need 130.

--
All the American flags on the moon have been bleached by radiation from the sun (which can only be a good thing).

On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 19:13:29 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 11:43:59 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Saturday, 4 March 2017 23:08:38 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 12:53:47 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 1 March 2017 19:56:09 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 11:04:50 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Sunday, 26 February 2017 01:11:22 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 10:40:15 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 23 February 2017 01:15:53 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 10:34:42 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

So why count them at all , why not just guess.

Because I'd be out by a huge margin.

I can understand that what with you head butting things because you don't know how high they are.

So you can pick up a lump of paper and say "there are about 150 sheets here"?

I can do that without a micrometer.
Why not gove them a new ream and say there;s about 200 sheets there, or just take about 75% from the pack and say there;s about 150 sheets.
Would we remain in the EU if you didn;lt guess right, what disaster would happen if you gave someone 140 sheets rather than 150 ?

A micrometer is easier.

Your 50mm = 500 sheets = 1 ream exactly, so that's fine.

except it measures 54cm and there's a few pages short

54cm?!

sorry meant 54mm
try measuring a ream of paper.

My reams are 50mm. Depends on the gsm and quality I guess.

So not much point in using sich a measurement for counting sheets then.
But if someone a stack of paper measuring Xmm your method would work.

My reams are always 50mm.

yeah sure so there;s no gaps between the pages.

Why would there be?

because otherwise the paper would stick together and you wouldn't be able to separate the sheets.

That's why printers get paper jams.

Which is why I fan the paper out as soon as I unwrap it from the outer wrapping.


There must be a reason you can think of for needing to count 150 sheets of paper. Use your imagination.

Sorry can't think of any reason why you'd need to count out 150 sheets of paper from a ream. If there was enough of a reason perhaps they'd sell then in packs of 150.

But sometimes you might need 130.

or 131 what would you do then ?

On Wed, 08 Mar 2017 11:20:11 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 19:13:29 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 11:43:59 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Saturday, 4 March 2017 23:08:38 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 12:53:47 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 1 March 2017 19:56:09 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 11:04:50 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Sunday, 26 February 2017 01:11:22 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 10:40:15 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 23 February 2017 01:15:53 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 10:34:42 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

So why count them at all , why not just guess.

Because I'd be out by a huge margin.

I can understand that what with you head butting things because you don't know how high they are.

So you can pick up a lump of paper and say "there are about 150 sheets here"?

I can do that without a micrometer.
Why not gove them a new ream and say there;s about 200 sheets there, or just take about 75% from the pack and say there;s about 150 sheets.
Would we remain in the EU if you didn;lt guess right, what disaster would happen if you gave someone 140 sheets rather than 150 ?

A micrometer is easier.

Your 50mm = 500 sheets = 1 ream exactly, so that's fine.

except it measures 54cm and there's a few pages short

54cm?!

sorry meant 54mm
try measuring a ream of paper.

My reams are 50mm. Depends on the gsm and quality I guess.

So not much point in using sich a measurement for counting sheets then.
But if someone a stack of paper measuring Xmm your method would work.

My reams are always 50mm.

yeah sure so there;s no gaps between the pages.

Why would there be?

because otherwise the paper would stick together and you wouldn't be able to separate the sheets.

That's why printers get paper jams.

Which is why I fan the paper out as soon as I unwrap it from the outer wrapping.

I once had a physics lecturer who did that. He placed a pile of photocopies on the desk and put his fist on top, then ran it round in a circle. Magically it fanned out nicely and everyone could pick up one sheet. This sort of information should be given to printer designers so printers don't constantly stop functioning and request their owner to help them out. We're in the 21st century and printers still can't pick up one sheet of paper.

There must be a reason you can think of for needing to count 150 sheets of paper. Use your imagination.

Sorry can't think of any reason why you'd need to count out 150 sheets of paper from a ream. If there was enough of a reason perhaps they'd sell then in packs of 150.

But sometimes you might need 130.

or 131 what would you do then ?

I'm not that fussy.

--
What do you call 4 sheep tied to a post in Wales?
A leisure centre!