Dear John and All,
I have added some remarks to the beginning of you post.
on 10.12.2000 04.44, kilopascal at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 2000-12-09
>
> A change to ISO paper sizes is not necessarily part of metrication (Not
> metrIFication as you show it. There is no IF in metrication). To change to
> ISO paper just because it is metric won't fly. It has to be "sold" to the
> US public on two other points:
>
> 1.) The fact that it is an international standard, and
>
> 2.) The sqrt(2)length to width ratio
>
3.) There is a logic to cutting and folding the A series of paper sizes that
is not present in other methods of paper sizes. If you cut or fold an A0 in
half for instance, you automatically get the next A size.
An A0 with 1 cut (or 1 fold) gives two pieces of A1
An A0 with 2 cuts becomes four pieces of A2
An A0 with 3 cuts becomes eight pieces of A3
An A0 with 4 cuts becomes sixteen pieces of A4
And so on.
I think that the ratio 1 : sqrt 2 is the only ratio that allows this
progression.
4.) When you cut larger A series sizes to make smaller A series pieces you
automatically do this in the most economical way - the series allows for the
small amount of dust produced by the cutting but does not require wasteful
off-cut pieces that have to be trashed.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin CAMS
Geelong, Australia
