Re: off topic Question of the day..

[Andre Majorel]

On 2016-07-16 13:49 +, 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 
bugs.debian.org, a spambot's best friend.

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[David Wright]

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 

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[John Hasler]

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 
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[David Wright]

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.

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[Lisi Reisz]

On Saturday 16 July 2016 14:49:30 Curt wrote:
> On 2016-07-16, 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.
>
> 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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[Lisi Reisz]

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[Curt]

On 2016-07-16, 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.

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

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[John Hasler]

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[John Hasler]

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 
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[Curt]

On 2016-07-16, Lisi Reisz  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  

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[Lisi Reisz]

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[John Hasler]

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 
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[David Wright]

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.

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[Dennis Wicks]

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!

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[Gene Heskett]

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 

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[Lisi Reisz]

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[David Wright]

On Sun 10 Jul 2016 at 23:22:29 (-0400), Doug wrote:
> On 07/10/2016 09:20 PM, rhkra...@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.
[...]
> >> Yes, paper; but how much?
> >
> >From a quick google search:
> >
> >
> >
> >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 ...
> >
> >
> >
> 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
> not to me!

gsm is grams per square metre. The numbers may be unfamiliar to
people in USA/Canada (75gsm is your normal 20lb copy paper) but
as for making sense, it could hardly be simpler---the weight in
grams of a square meter of the actual paper concerned.
Where's the sense in "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)

Cheers,
David.

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

[David Wright]

On Sun 10 Jul 2016 at 21:20:39 (-0400), rhkra...@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:
> 
> 
> 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 ...
> 

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.

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[Doug]

On 07/10/2016 09:20 PM, rhkra...@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:



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 ...




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

not to me!

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[rhkramer]

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:


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 ...

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[David Wright]

I'm finding this excahnge harder and harder to follow...

On Sun 10 Jul 2016 at 18:28:31 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 10 July 2016 15:01:42 Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Sunday 10 July 2016 19:47:19 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > On Sunday 10 July 2016 14:26:01 John Hasler wrote:
> > > > Gene writes:
> > > > > Anything but letter, or maybe legal, is special order on this
> > > > > side of the pond.

I understand that, if you live in a small town.

> > > > Lots of outfits such as OfficeMax claim to stock A3.
> > > > http://www.a4supplies.com/ claims to have everthing A size.

At $58-72/ream (20-28lbs), that's a lot more than 11x17 at, say,
Staples: $18-19/ream (20), $60-88/5reams (20-24).

> > >  Uh huh, and thats special order for me in small county seat town
> > > West Virginia. :) Pick up at the local wally's store for a few cents
> > > north of $19 for a 500 sheet ream of fairly smooth paper Is hard to
> > > beat.

That's a good price for 28lbs paper if that's what it is.

> > This is what I mean by special order - look at the prices. :-/
> >
> > https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps
> >-keywords=tabloid+sized+printer+paper=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Atabloid+sized+pr
> >inter+paper
> >
> > https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Daps
> >ld-keywords=A4+printer+paper=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3AA4+printer+paper
> 
> Pounds to dollars, thats 3x what I just paid for 28 lb well finished copy 
> paper.  Those folks must think you Brits all have your own money tree?

But you'd have to be crazy buying ledger rather than A3 in the UK.

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?

Cheers,
David.

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[Lisi Reisz]

On Sunday 10 July 2016 23:51:15 Gene Heskett wrote:
> I've obviously got too many hobbies.

No such thing as too many hobbies!! ;-)

Lisi

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[Gene Heskett]

On Sunday 10 July 2016 18:45:05 Lisi Reisz wrote:

> 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??

This printing facility is I believe, tdeprint. No, I just ran it, and 
thats not what I'm looking at. Ahh, I just spied the "e" so its evinces 
own printer driver.
>
> 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 rhkra...@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


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 

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[Gene Heskett]

On Sunday 10 July 2016 17:27:45 David Wright wrote:

> On Sun 10 Jul 2016 at 00:09:34 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Could you attach your Lexan to a wall behind the printer and then
> push the printer close to the Lexan to leave only a small gap for
> the paper to have to cross? Like (if your unicode is up to it):
>
I gave up on the lexan idea, as too heavy and thick.  Some 3/4" mahogany 
strips glue to a sheet of 28 gauge alu are about whats needed, with 
another strip of thin oak under the front edge of the alu.  Some screws 
so the heads hit the end of the door when I lay the front 1/4 of alu on 
the door will serve to align it angularly, while two more bits of thin 
wood attached to the underside runners that support the oak, so each one 
can be adjusted to center it up by pushing on the sides of the door on 
the existing guides need to be fitted yet, and another strip underneath 
it at the rear to serve as a lift handle for one hand, while the other 
encourages to paper to go in and be picked up by the feed grippers.  It 
will slide in far enough to beep by the weight of the paper, but needs 
help to get it to close the grippers on the end of the paper.  Tomorrows 
project now as I got sidetracked working on the Sheldon lathes CNC 
conversion, while glue was setting on this thing.

I've obviously got too many hobbies.

> ┊←wall
> ┊
> ┊ ↙ Lexan (should be a shallower angle)
> ┊  ╲
> ┊   ┌┐←printer (push it towards Lexan)
> ┊   ┊┊
> └╌╌╌┴┴╌╌╌ ←tabletop
>
> Cheers,
> David.


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 

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[Lisi Reisz]

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 rhkra...@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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[Gene Heskett]

On Sunday 10 July 2016 15:01:42 Lisi Reisz wrote:

> On Sunday 10 July 2016 19:47:19 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Sunday 10 July 2016 14:26:01 John Hasler wrote:
> > > Gene writes:
> > > > Anything but letter, or maybe legal, is special order on this
> > > > side of the pond.
> > >
> > > Lots of outfits such as OfficeMax claim to stock A3.
> > > http://www.a4supplies.com/ claims to have everthing A size.
> >
> >  Uh huh, and thats special order for me in small county seat town
> > West Virginia. :) Pick up at the local wally's store for a few cents
> > north of $19 for a 500 sheet ream of fairly smooth paper Is hard to
> > beat.
>
> This is what I mean by special order - look at the prices. :-/
>
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps
>-keywords=tabloid+sized+printer+paper=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Atabloid+sized+pr
>inter+paper
>
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Daps
>ld-keywords=A4+printer+paper=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3AA4+printer+paper

Pounds to dollars, thats 3x what I just paid for 28 lb well finished copy 
paper.  Those folks must think you Brits all have your own money tree?

> The only Wally's I could find was a delicatessen.  Do you mean
> Walmart?

Yes'm.  Thats the place. :)

> 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 

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[Gene Heskett]

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 rhkra...@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 

Re: paper sizes (was: off topic Question of the day..)

[Felix Miata]

Gene Heskett composed on 2016-07-10 13:38 (UTC-0400):


Wikipedia agrees, tabloid is 11x17 portrait, ledger is 17x11 landscape.
But according to the other internet resources, 11x17 is a bastard
American only size.


It's a legacy American size, 11x8.5 letter paper times two side-by-side, one 
of the more common sizes for bookkeeping journals in eras before digital 
computers. Apparently, not yet have all American bookkeeping systems been 
fully computerized:


https://incompetech.com/graphpaper/ledger/17x11_cream-green_13x40.pdf
http://www.legalstore.com/General-Disbursement-Journal-11-x-17-p/wjdga3.htm
http://officesupplyonsale.com/item/az/x4isb001fl/wilson-jones-accounting-sheets-14-columns-11-x-17-100-loose-sheets-pack-gn
--
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[David Wright]

On Sun 10 Jul 2016 at 00:09:34 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:

> 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.

Could you attach your Lexan to a wall behind the printer and then
push the printer close to the Lexan to leave only a small gap for
the paper to have to cross? Like (if your unicode is up to it):

┊←wall
┊
┊  ↙Lexan (should be a shallower angle)
┊╲
┊   ┌┐←printer (push it towards Lexan)
┊   ┊┊
└╌╌╌┴┴╌╌╌ ←tabletop

Cheers,
David.

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[Lisi Reisz]

On Sunday 10 July 2016 19:47:19 Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 10 July 2016 14:26:01 John Hasler wrote:
> > Gene writes:
> > > Anything but letter, or maybe legal, is special order on this side
> > > of the pond.
> >
> > Lots of outfits such as OfficeMax claim to stock A3.
> > http://www.a4supplies.com/ claims to have everthing A size.
>
>  Uh huh, and thats special order for me in small county seat town West
> Virginia. :) Pick up at the local wally's store for a few cents north of
> $19 for a 500 sheet ream of fairly smooth paper Is hard to beat.


This is what I mean by special order - look at the prices. :-/

https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps=tabloid+sized+printer+paper=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Atabloid+sized+printer+paper

https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Daps=A4+printer+paper=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3AA4+printer+paper

The only Wally's I could find was a delicatessen.  Do you mean Walmart?

Lisi

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[Lisi Reisz]

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 rhkra...@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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[Gene Heskett]

On Sunday 10 July 2016 14:26:01 John Hasler wrote:

> Gene writes:
> > Anything but letter, or maybe legal, is special order on this side
> > of the pond.
>
> Lots of outfits such as OfficeMax claim to stock A3.
> http://www.a4supplies.com/ claims to have everthing A size.

 Uh huh, and thats special order for me in small county seat town West 
Virginia. :) Pick up at the local wally's store for a few cents north of 
$19 for a 500 sheet ream of fairly smooth paper Is hard to beat.

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 

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[Brian]

On Sun 10 Jul 2016 at 13:38:14 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:

> On Sunday 10 July 2016 06:34:00 deloptes wrote:
> 
> > Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > Anybody here got the magic incantation to keep it from shrinking the
> > > image to unusability on the paper in the two front trays?
> >
> > I doubt it shrinks the image only when paper fed from specific tray.
> > Perhaps you should think in the opposite direction - shrink the image
> > to the paper size.
> > The size of the printed image usually depends on the quality of the
> > image (and the printer capability). Think of dpi on both sides.
> > Therefore most print software offers options to influence this or
> > autofit the paper size.
> >
> > regards
> 
> But no one is actually answering the question. Yesterday I had the 
> printer requester set for A3, no clue where the backport guides are set 

"Printer requester" may mean something to you. It may mean something to
others. It means little to me.

If you mean that you are telling the printing system that the job is
being printed on A3 paper I'd understand that.

> because I cannot read black on black at the oblique angle the door is 
> allowed to open, so the guides are taped such as to allow 1/16" of slop 
> at the most. But today, I have feed the same sheet of paper thru it 
> about a dozen times without getting a single smudge of ink on it, AND 
> cup says the job sent was only 1 kilobyte, where yesterday evince was 
> sending 4.5 megabytes per printed page. So where the heck is that data 
> going, because its sure as hell not getting to the printer as anything 
> but a blank page.  I've rebooted now, and will take a look at any 
> suspect logs I can find.  Nothing there that relates to this.

If there is no printing it will have more to do with your setup than a
mechanical feature such as guides. I say that without having your model
of printer so I could be completely wrong. On the other hand, I could be
completely right.

What is not wrong is that you have an obsolete printing system. This is
not to say it shouldn't be a *working* obsolete system but it does mean
help in diagnosing the issue of not being able to print becomes a little
difficult when we have all moved on and have forgotton the details of
such systems.

> Wikipedia agrees, tabloid is 11x17 portrait, ledger is 17x11 landscape.

11x17 and 17x11 are width x height. That assumes you live in a culture
where "width" means "across" and "height" means "down".

"Landscape" and "Portrait" have no meaning in this context. You can turn
the paper though 90 degrees to get one or the other. One person's portait
tabloid piece of paper is another's landscape.

> But according to the other internet resources, 11x17 is a bastard 
> American only size.

Language, please. :)

> The printer processor, the gui I get when I click "print" in evince  
> gives me tabloid only and landscape as a separate rotational option, 
> which because tabloid is normally two facing pages 17" high & 11" to the 
> crease, I had set to landscape since its 34" long and 29 or so high 
> coming out of inkscape as a .png. Posterazor makes a 6 page pdf out of 
> it.  Evince says the pages, 6 of them, are 15.82 × 9.82 inch so no 
> wonder it was cutting so much off the edges to get a registration of one 
> page to the next yesterday.

"printer processor" would normally be called the "print dialog".
 
> So here goes, evince loaded up one more time, cups options is set for 
> 11x17, and I'll select tabloid/landscape for page 1.  
> 
> Set "current page", scale 105%, tabloid, borderless, landscape.  page 
> scaling=none on the next tab, color is vivid, but no profile specified.
> 
> Click print, printer fires up, plays with paper for about 30 seconds, 
> spits out blank sheet of paper. The cup web page says the job was 
> completed and was 1k in size.

You need to examine an error_log. Line-by-line.
 
> Two files on the system were updated yesterday after I printed the 8 
> pages I did, because 3 of the 8 missfed and lost some of the image. I 
> used one anyway.
> 
> Commit Log for Sat Jul  9 09:06:50 2016
> 
> Upgraded the following packages:
> libicu48 (4.8.1.1-12+deb7u3) to 4.8.1.1-12+deb7u4
> linuxcnc-uspace (1:2.7.4.138.g2ed2210) to 1:2.7.4.140.gb3ec66b
> 
> Says its International Components for Unicode
> The last one isn't related. But what is the function of the first one?
> 
> And I just found this in the /var/log/cups/error_log
> W [10/Jul/2016:08:15:43 -0400] Please move "SystemGroup lpadmin gene" on 
> line 2 of /etc/cups/cupsd.conf to the /etc/cups/cups-files.conf file; 
> this will become an error in a future release.
> W [10/Jul/2016:08:15:43 -0400] Please move "Group sys" on line 3 
> of /etc/cups/cupsd.conf to the /etc/cups/cups-files.conf file; this will 
> become an error in a future release.
> W [10/Jul/2016:08:15:43 -0400] Please move "User lp" on line 4 
> of /etc/cups/cupsd.conf to the /etc/cups/cups-files.conf file; this will 
> become an error in a future release.
> 
> 

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[John Hasler]

Gene writes:
> Anything but letter, or maybe legal, is special order on this side of
> the pond.

Lots of outfits such as OfficeMax claim to stock A3.
http://www.a4supplies.com/ claims to have everthing A size.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[Gene Heskett]

On Sunday 10 July 2016 09:09:24 Lisi Reisz wrote:

> On Sunday 10 July 2016 05:09:34 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > I don't know how easy it is to buy A series paper in the US
>
> Gene, you haven't answered this.  I would say, about as easy as these
> pesky non-memorable American sizes are to buy over here!!
>
> Lisi

Anything but letter, or maybe legal, is special order on this side of the 
pond. We get used to it eventually.

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 

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[Gene Heskett]

On Sunday 10 July 2016 06:34:00 deloptes wrote:

> Gene Heskett wrote:
> > Anybody here got the magic incantation to keep it from shrinking the
> > image to unusability on the paper in the two front trays?
>
> I doubt it shrinks the image only when paper fed from specific tray.
> Perhaps you should think in the opposite direction - shrink the image
> to the paper size.
> The size of the printed image usually depends on the quality of the
> image (and the printer capability). Think of dpi on both sides.
> Therefore most print software offers options to influence this or
> autofit the paper size.
>
> regards

But no one is actually answering the question. Yesterday I had the 
printer requester set for A3, no clue where the backport guides are set 
because I cannot read black on black at the oblique angle the door is 
allowed to open, so the guides are taped such as to allow 1/16" of slop 
at the most. But today, I have feed the same sheet of paper thru it 
about a dozen times without getting a single smudge of ink on it, AND 
cup says the job sent was only 1 kilobyte, where yesterday evince was 
sending 4.5 megabytes per printed page. So where the heck is that data 
going, because its sure as hell not getting to the printer as anything 
but a blank page.  I've rebooted now, and will take a look at any 
suspect logs I can find.  Nothing there that relates to this.

Wikipedia agrees, tabloid is 11x17 portrait, ledger is 17x11 landscape.  
But according to the other internet resources, 11x17 is a bastard 
American only size.

The printer processor, the gui I get when I click "print" in evince  
gives me tabloid only and landscape as a separate rotational option, 
which because tabloid is normally two facing pages 17" high & 11" to the 
crease, I had set to landscape since its 34" long and 29 or so high 
coming out of inkscape as a .png. Posterazor makes a 6 page pdf out of 
it.  Evince says the pages, 6 of them, are 15.82 × 9.82 inch so no 
wonder it was cutting so much off the edges to get a registration of one 
page to the next yesterday.

So here goes, evince loaded up one more time, cups options is set for 
11x17, and I'll select tabloid/landscape for page 1.  

Set "current page", scale 105%, tabloid, borderless, landscape.  page 
scaling=none on the next tab, color is vivid, but no profile specified.

Click print, printer fires up, plays with paper for about 30 seconds, 
spits out blank sheet of paper. The cup web page says the job was 
completed and was 1k in size.

Two files on the system were updated yesterday after I printed the 8 
pages I did, because 3 of the 8 missfed and lost some of the image. I 
used one anyway.

Commit Log for Sat Jul  9 09:06:50 2016

Upgraded the following packages:
libicu48 (4.8.1.1-12+deb7u3) to 4.8.1.1-12+deb7u4
linuxcnc-uspace (1:2.7.4.138.g2ed2210) to 1:2.7.4.140.gb3ec66b

Says its International Components for Unicode
The last one isn't related. But what is the function of the first one?

And I just found this in the /var/log/cups/error_log
W [10/Jul/2016:08:15:43 -0400] Please move "SystemGroup lpadmin gene" on 
line 2 of /etc/cups/cupsd.conf to the /etc/cups/cups-files.conf file; 
this will become an error in a future release.
W [10/Jul/2016:08:15:43 -0400] Please move "Group sys" on line 3 
of /etc/cups/cupsd.conf to the /etc/cups/cups-files.conf file; this will 
become an error in a future release.
W [10/Jul/2016:08:15:43 -0400] Please move "User lp" on line 4 
of /etc/cups/cupsd.conf to the /etc/cups/cups-files.conf file; this will 
become an error in a future release.

So I did, but now its a total failure: bad edit, fixed.  And it still 
doesn't work.  Acid test, print this email. Crashed kmail. Restarted, 
mail was saved.

I think I may have it sussed. Up to now I could configure a given printer 
with different options so I had my choices of single sided, duplex etc 
available just by calling the correct printername.  In this case I had 
prefixed the model number with the make name.  So one is set with the ID 
of MFCJ6920DW, and the other is set to Brother_MFC_J6920DW, and the 
first one has an 8.5x11 portrait default, and which from the cli using 
lp, works as normal, so that idea just got flushed.

Next test, set both cups and this requester for A3, borderless, restart 
cups, and try again. No marks or ink smudges on the paper.

Go back and reload the pdf I generated yesterday into evince.  Still set 
for A3 borderless.  clipped about 1/4" of the image off what would have 
been the left edge of the paper viewed from the rear input port, and at 
least 2" of unused paper on the right edge and there isn't any way the 
guidance of the paper was that bad.  Used about 15.75" of the length of 
the paper with nearly equal borders.  Next, leave the cups config be, 
and set the printer menu for tabloid, worked, no difference in the image 
scaling, lots of right edge border to cut off like before.  One more 
try, tabloid,borderless.  And again, no diff in the image 

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[Curt]

On 2016-07-10, Gene Heskett  wrote:
>
> That sounds like I'd get landscape without specifying it if I chose 
> ledger.  Does anyone know if thats the case with our wheezy/tde printing 
> filter?  Ledger isn't one of the choices, and tabloid spits out blank 
> paper. And according to cups, evince is only send it a 1k sized job.
>

I use Wheezy but not tde. In evince I have neither tabloid nor ledger as
a paper choice, only "11x17".  And then there's also "custom".

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[Lisi Reisz]

On Sunday 10 July 2016 05:09:34 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > I don't know how easy it is to buy A series paper in the US

Gene, you haven't answered this.  I would say, about as easy as these pesky 
non-memorable American sizes are to buy over here!!

Lisi

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[Gene Heskett]

On Sunday 10 July 2016 04:43:13 Curt wrote:

> On 2016-07-09, Gene Heskett  wrote:
> >> Is Tabloid
> >> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_size#North_American_paper_size
> >>s ) in the list?
> >
> > 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?
>
> I'm reading 11x17 can be tabloid (US B/ANSI B) *or* ledger (ANSI B).
>
> http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/office-paper-sizes-d_213.html
>
> Tabloid and ledger are both of identical dimensions, but one is a
> horizontal orientation, and the other a vertical one.

That sounds like I'd get landscape without specifying it if I chose 
ledger.  Does anyone know if thats the case with our wheezy/tde printing 
filter?  Ledger isn't one of the choices, and tabloid spits out blank 
paper. And according to cups, evince is only send it a 1k sized job.

It looks great on the evince screen!  So I tried to regenerate it from 
the original .svg file.  But this time, inkscape refused to export 
anything but a .png, so I had to use Poserazer to generate a 6 page 
using 15something by 9something images in .pdf format, looking identical 
to the first file on the evince screen.

Restarted evince 3 or 4 times. Print first page, get blank paper and cups 
says the job was 1 kilobyte, when it worked yesterday, each page was 
about 4.5 megabytes down the pipeline to the printer. 

I am totally bumfuzzled, htop says I am about 40 megs into swap, so maybe 
I should send this and reboot.

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 

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[deloptes]

Gene Heskett wrote:

> Anybody here got the magic incantation to keep it from shrinking the
> image to unusability on the paper in the two front trays?

I doubt it shrinks the image only when paper fed from specific tray. Perhaps
you should think in the opposite direction - shrink the image to the paper
size.
The size of the printed image usually depends on the quality of the image
(and the printer capability). Think of dpi on both sides. Therefore most
print software offers options to influence this or autofit the paper size.

regards

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[Curt]

On 2016-07-09, Gene Heskett  wrote:

>> Is Tabloid
>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_size#North_American_paper_sizes )
>> in the list?
>
> 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?
>

I'm reading 11x17 can be tabloid (US B/ANSI B) *or* ledger (ANSI B).

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/office-paper-sizes-d_213.html

Tabloid and ledger are both of identical dimensions, but one is a
horizontal orientation, and the other a vertical one.

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

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[Gene Heskett]

On Saturday 09 July 2016 21:51:52 rhkra...@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
-- 
"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 

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[rhkramer]

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.

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'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.

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[Gene Heskett]

On Saturday 09 July 2016 18:30:24 Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote:

> Gene Heskett wrote on 07/09/16 13:55:
> 
>
> > lpoptions -l shows.  So, what label A4, A3, ledger etc is actually
> > 11x17?  In the last 20 years, here in the US,  paper sizes other
> > than
>
> Is Tabloid
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_size#North_American_paper_sizes )
> in the list?

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?

I have too many projects underway. Waiting on some mahogany that won't 
warp like crazy when the Saran wrap comes off for starters.  And I am 
just beginning to make all the pieces to CNC an old Sheldon 11x36 metal 
lathe.  I had some wall reinforcement installed along with improved 
drainage in the basement, so everthing is piled in the middle of the 
floor while I get around to putting additional insulation on the walls 
before I move all the shelving and contents back to a reasonable 
facsimile of where they were. With my bad back, thats going to be slow 
as I engineer how to move stuff thats beyond my ability to pick up and 
carry, some of which will go out a 2 by 3 window about 5'6" up and into 
a trash trailer.  And someplace in the middle of all that is a full 
sized pool table I'd like to use again. If I can bend over far enough to 
run a cue stick.

> Regards,
> jvp.

Thanks JVP.

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 

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[Jörg-Volker Peetz]

Gene Heskett wrote on 07/09/16 13:55:


> lpoptions -l shows.  So, what label A4, A3, ledger etc is actually 
> 11x17?  In the last 20 years, here in the US,  paper sizes other than 

Is Tabloid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_size#North_American_paper_sizes
) in the list?

Regards,
jvp.

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[Gene Heskett]

On Saturday 09 July 2016 18:28:27 Doug wrote:

> On 07/08/2016 11:45 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Friday 08 July 2016 21:35:30 Gene Heskett wrote:
> >> Greetings all;
> >>
> >> I bought, about a month ago, a big Brother MFC, proclaimed that it
> >> could do 11x17 prints when single sheet fed from the slot in the
> >> rear.
> >>
> >> Its a Brother MFC-J6920DW.
> >> So having a rockhopper output file that has been exported as a pdf
> >> by inkscape, I ordered up a ream of 11x17 28lb paper from wallies.
> >>
> >> But I'll be switched if I can find a setting anyplace that will
> >> make it use a sheet of it fed thru the rear slot/door.
> >>
> >> Anybody here got the magic incantation to keep it from shrinking
> >> the image to unusability on the paper in the two front trays?
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> Cheers, Gene Heskett
>
> Slightly OT: Do you have an 11 x 17 scanner? If wo, what kind?

Yes, with an ADF too, on top of the printer.  Works well too.
>
> --doug
>
> > Call in the St. Bernards, I found it. With the pdf loaded into
> > evince I was able to set "current page" in its printer dialog, then
> > it called the system gizmo, and on the 2nd tab was a paper selection
> > pulldown that had the 11x17 selection available. And darned if it
> > didn't work!  Biggest problem was getting the paper started straight
> > enough.  Very poor and downright flimsy guidance hardware for the
> > rear big sheet/odd size input port.
> >
> > Job done and now I know how. ;-)
> >
> >
> > 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 

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[Doug]

On 07/08/2016 11:45 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:

On Friday 08 July 2016 21:35:30 Gene Heskett wrote:


Greetings all;

I bought, about a month ago, a big Brother MFC, proclaimed that it
could do 11x17 prints when single sheet fed from the slot in the rear.

Its a Brother MFC-J6920DW.
So having a rockhopper output file that has been exported as a pdf by
inkscape, I ordered up a ream of 11x17 28lb paper from wallies.

But I'll be switched if I can find a setting anyplace that will make
it use a sheet of it fed thru the rear slot/door.

Anybody here got the magic incantation to keep it from shrinking the
image to unusability on the paper in the two front trays?

Thanks.

Cheers, Gene Heskett

Slightly OT: Do you have an 11 x 17 scanner? If wo, what kind?

--doug

Call in the St. Bernards, I found it. With the pdf loaded into evince I
was able to set "current page" in its printer dialog, then it called the
system gizmo, and on the 2nd tab was a paper selection pulldown that had
the 11x17 selection available. And darned if it didn't work!  Biggest
problem was getting the paper started straight enough.  Very poor and
downright flimsy guidance hardware for the rear big sheet/odd size input
port.

Job done and now I know how. ;-)


Cheers, Gene Heskett

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[Gene Heskett]

On Saturday 09 July 2016 02:56:38 Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote:

> With cups-client all printer specific options can be listed with
>
>   lpoptions -l
>
> To select a specific printer add '-p '. See 'man
> lpoptions' or http://localhost:631/help .
>
> Regards,
> jvp.

Thats informative, but the printers rear input door, which doesn't open 
far enough to make reading its markings embossed in black plastic easily 
readable, and is marked in similar labeling as the output of 
lpoptions -l shows.  So, what label A4, A3, ledger etc is actually 
11x17?  In the last 20 years, here in the US,  paper sizes other than 
letter have become special order only. One of the reasons I bought this 
printer was its large size capability greatly simplify's this particular 
modern machine shop need, although I am less than impressed with its 
paper guidance facility. It seriously needs a longer input tray than the 
teeny little 2" door it has.

Because the cross-coupled guides on this door are only about 1/8" high, I 
was forced to fix them in position with scotch-tape because they move so 
easily. And I may yet build a longer table for it, with additional 
guides to help align the sheet during the insertion process.  OTOH, a 
500 sheet ream will be more than a lifetime supply. :)  And I'll have to 
make a box to hold this paper, and mount it else the corners will be 
damaged as its moved around here in this midden heap called the 
coyote.den.  But that's my problem isn't it? :-)

Many Thanks.  When nearly everything now has a gui, one tends to forget 
the command line attack.

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 

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[Jörg-Volker Peetz]

With cups-client all printer specific options can be listed with

  lpoptions -l

To select a specific printer add '-p '. See 'man lpoptions' or
http://localhost:631/help .

Regards,
jvp.

Re: off topic Question of the day..

[Gene Heskett]

On Friday 08 July 2016 21:35:30 Gene Heskett wrote:

> Greetings all;
>
> I bought, about a month ago, a big Brother MFC, proclaimed that it
> could do 11x17 prints when single sheet fed from the slot in the rear.
>
> Its a Brother MFC-J6920DW.
> So having a rockhopper output file that has been exported as a pdf by
> inkscape, I ordered up a ream of 11x17 28lb paper from wallies.
>
> But I'll be switched if I can find a setting anyplace that will make
> it use a sheet of it fed thru the rear slot/door.
>
> Anybody here got the magic incantation to keep it from shrinking the
> image to unusability on the paper in the two front trays?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Cheers, Gene Heskett

Call in the St. Bernards, I found it. With the pdf loaded into evince I 
was able to set "current page" in its printer dialog, then it called the 
system gizmo, and on the 2nd tab was a paper selection pulldown that had 
the 11x17 selection available. And darned if it didn't work!  Biggest 
problem was getting the paper started straight enough.  Very poor and 
downright flimsy guidance hardware for the rear big sheet/odd size input 
port.

Job done and now I know how. ;-)


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 

off topic Question of the day..

[Gene Heskett]

Greetings all;

I bought, about a month ago, a big Brother MFC, proclaimed that it could 
do 11x17 prints when single sheet fed from the slot in the rear.

Its a Brother MFC-J6920DW.
So having a rockhopper output file that has been exported as a pdf by 
inkscape, I ordered up a ream of 11x17 28lb paper from wallies.

But I'll be switched if I can find a setting anyplace that will make it 
use a sheet of it fed thru the rear slot/door.

Anybody here got the magic incantation to keep it from shrinking the 
image to unusability on the paper in the two front trays?

Thanks.

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