Perhaps the most efficient approach to this would be to use a size that could be cut in "one shot" in accordance with some binary breakdown. Therefore, at first I'd say that the A series paper would be a better candidate for this. Besides, A paper is already readily available.
Marcus On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 13:17:46 Jim Elwell wrote: >Pat Naughtin wrote in USMA 21674: > > >.... > >To conserve paper, card, and therefore trees we could decide to use an > >International Organization for Standardization (ISO) paper sizes, such as: > > > > ISO A8 paper or card is 52 mm x 74 mm. > > ISO B8 paper or card is 62 mm x 88 mm > > > >The B8 size seems closest to the business cards that are in current use. > >Business cards are not printed on paper that is their final size. They are >printed on larger sheets then sheared to their final size. > >To know which is the most "efficient" size in terms of paper used or >wasted, you would have to know the requirements of the job and of the >equipment being used: what is the grip margin required (for the printer >machine to grip the paper), and what is the minimum gutter between cards >that will allow for accurate shearing, how much margin is needed for proof >marks, does the card require bleed (ink running off the edge), etc. > >Since these things vary from job to job and from machine to machine, I >doubt that any particular card size could claim to be least wasteful of paper. > >My company has standardized all cards to 50 x 90 mm. It is hard metric, >easy to remember, and is close enough to the USA standard size that it >works fine with card scanners, wallets, etc. > > >Jim Elwell, CAMS >Electrical Engineer >Industrial manufacturing manager >Salt Lake City, Utah, USA >www.qsicorp.com > > Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
